By most people's standards, George Friedman of Stratfor is considered a guru in the world of American foreign policy. Today, he is out with an analysis of why the USA ought not intervene in Syria. Simply put, Friedman argues convincingly that the United States will not be able to create a democracy in Syria absent enormous cost; nor will America be able to end the bloodshed of the innocents no matter what we do. Nevertheless, the only coherent response to Friedman is one simple question: Why are those the goals of American action? It would be nice to see Syria develop into some nice democratic state, but given its history and its people, that is indeed unlikely. It would be nice to see the civil war end and the sectarian violence at the core of that struggle likewise stop, but once more, that is unlikely. So what?
Why would it not be a valid goal of American policy to see to it that the chemical weapons and the means to make more within Syria get destroyed without being used on the Syrian people, or, more important, the United States and its allies? That goal does not require a long involvement by America in this civil war. That goal would not lead to enormous numbers of American casualties. that goal is finite and could be kept so by preventing "mission creep".
A year and a half ago, the American government had a real opportunity to end the conflict in Syria and to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. President Obama chose not to concern himself with the issue, and events in Syria spiraled out of control. Now it is too late to achieve and easy end to conflict. Nevertheless, there remain in Syrian hands enough chemical weapons to kill literally millions of people. Sadly, it seems that many of those Syrian hands are connected to delusional or psychotic brains in their Syrian heads. Should America not have the goal of preventing the use of chemical weapons because Obama chose earlier not to act to stop the fighting? No, because the most likely targets outside of Syria itself are all in the USA.
It will not be an easy mission to destroy all these chemical weapons. That is something that everyone can agree upon. Should we shy from a difficult mission if the alternative is a chemical attack on Chicago? Without a doubt there will be losses in any action in Syria. Should that dissuade us until such time as the crowd at the next Super Bowl gets sprayed with sarin gas? In short, do we not defend ourselves and our interests because it might be hard to do or because it would result in substantial costs?
With all due respect to the foreign policy gurus of the world, sometimes actions is required and sometimes that action is messy. That messiness, however, is not a reason for inaction.
Why would it not be a valid goal of American policy to see to it that the chemical weapons and the means to make more within Syria get destroyed without being used on the Syrian people, or, more important, the United States and its allies? That goal does not require a long involvement by America in this civil war. That goal would not lead to enormous numbers of American casualties. that goal is finite and could be kept so by preventing "mission creep".
A year and a half ago, the American government had a real opportunity to end the conflict in Syria and to prevent tens of thousands of deaths. President Obama chose not to concern himself with the issue, and events in Syria spiraled out of control. Now it is too late to achieve and easy end to conflict. Nevertheless, there remain in Syrian hands enough chemical weapons to kill literally millions of people. Sadly, it seems that many of those Syrian hands are connected to delusional or psychotic brains in their Syrian heads. Should America not have the goal of preventing the use of chemical weapons because Obama chose earlier not to act to stop the fighting? No, because the most likely targets outside of Syria itself are all in the USA.
It will not be an easy mission to destroy all these chemical weapons. That is something that everyone can agree upon. Should we shy from a difficult mission if the alternative is a chemical attack on Chicago? Without a doubt there will be losses in any action in Syria. Should that dissuade us until such time as the crowd at the next Super Bowl gets sprayed with sarin gas? In short, do we not defend ourselves and our interests because it might be hard to do or because it would result in substantial costs?
With all due respect to the foreign policy gurus of the world, sometimes actions is required and sometimes that action is messy. That messiness, however, is not a reason for inaction.
No comments:
Post a Comment