13 thoughts on “Marc Lynch: ‘U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Misguided, Dangerous’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I think the aftermath of the Libyan intervention is a good enough case for non-intervention: militias that won’t disarm, a transitional government lost in space, racial killings. Syria has a good chance of becoming another Lebanon, and the US needs to stay out.

  2. It’s hard to tell what’s the best course to be taken. There’s probably no perfect, drawbacks-free solution.

    One thing is clear, though: letting events resolve themselves means letting Assad’s butchery continue till the opposition, its suspected sympathisers, their immediate families, extended families, neighbours and fellow townspeople are all dead or tortured beyond recognition.

    Choosing – for political expediency – to let this massacre go on while having the means to stop it is morally repugnant.

    An island of relative sanity, Turkey, the local former imperial power and current democratic power-broker seems to be the obvious force at hand that should be reckoned with.

    1. I did not say I was for the butchery; I am for Mr. Silverstein’s Turkish/Arab League plan. What I’m well-aware of are the possibility of unintended consequences, and I see all sorts of problems if the US gets involved. By the way, I am aware that Al-Qaeda of Iraq fighters are allegedly inside Syria now, probably fighting both the government and any Free Syrian Army groups “not Islamic enough.” Even that is not worth getting involved.

  3. You wrote that you were amused by the “hypocritical moral indignation” of those who speak out against the violence in Syria but support the Israeli line.

    I do think it is worth mentioning that the scale of what is going on in Syria is significantly greater than anything that is or has been going on in the Occupied Territories.

    To wit, there have been more people killed by the Syrian regime in the last ten months than Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in the last twenty-five years.

    1. Wow, you’re just repeating the new hasbara-line, aren’t you ?
      There is absolutely no comparison between the two situations: on the one side, we have a population who has been expelled, dispossessed and mistreated on their own land for the last 64 years – without major outcry from “international moral authorities” – by a state largely financed by the West and whose continued colonization is even facilitated by tax-reduction (in the US and France at least), and on the other hand we have the Syrian people – or a part of it – who is rising against their own dictators, but how incredible it might seem to you – and to me – Assad and the regime still have support among not only Alawites but also Christians who fear a new Iraq. Do you know how many Iraqi Christian refugees are living in Syria ?

      And yes, it is extreme hypocrisy to see for example a Bernard-Henri Levi – who has never criticized the Israeli occupation in the OT, who went into Gaza on an Israeli tank during Cast Lead, who was one of the instigators behind the intervention in Libya, completely marginalizing the French Minister of Foreign Affairs Alain Juppé, who later at the local CRIF-dinner party (the French AIPAC) claimed that he acted as a French but first of all as a Jew and for the sake of Israel – organizing a conference in Paris for the Syrian opposition. Fortunately, when long-time opponents of the Assad-regime found out who was behind the conference, they refused the invitation. The actual leader of the CNT, Burhan Ghalioun, even wrote an op-ed in “Le Monde” with two other Syrians in exile asking BHL to keep his nose out of Syrian affairs ! The list of such people is long, and how come they mostly have close ties to Israel ?

      1. I only mentioned it because you brought up the subject. One thing does not justify the other or anything like that. I just think it ought to be acceptable for people to express their outrage or concern about what is going on in Syria even if they are pro-Israel or pro-America or what have you. The one ought not to exclude the other necessarily.

  4. “The Arab League and the muslim nations in the region must unite to develop a plan for Syrian transition”

    The socalled “Friends of Syria” met last week in Tunis. There’s a lot of information on the net – from articles claiming it’s another conspiration to positve reactions.

  5. “The main reason why the U.S. must not intervene is that we already have two interventions on our plate in Iraq and Afghanistan and the possibility of a third in Iran”

    Any military intervention in Syria is the beginning of the war with Iran. Iran and Hesbollah would certainly strike back if there were US, Israeli, or NATO troops on the ground in Syria.

    Another dangerous game that the US is playing is with the Syrian National Council. The SNC is based in the US, and the Syrian people have little representation with this body.

    The case of Syria, I think, is a test of popular movements in the world. Are people serious about the Arab Spring, the Syrian Revolution, and Occupy Wall Street. Do we want to have a people-based movement that rejects militarism as a means to addressing conflicts and as a means to having legitimacy as a government? Syria presents a case where our policy-makers will not resolve things, and will only make things worse.

    1. The main reason the US should not intervene is that its policy of military aggression must end. Its hegemonic ideology is what created the situation in the first place; all those payoffs to Arab leaders to preserve the status quo, and the happiness of Israel, are causing huge blowback, with the potential for catastrophe.

      I am hoping the Arab League grows a pair and steps up to the plate, and deals with this horror. If it does not, or cannot, what the hell is their ostensible reason for existing if not to serve their American master?

  6. “Western intervention could work in Libya because it was not a central player either in the Arab world or even in North Africa.”

    huh? could you define ‘work’ in this context? if by ‘work’ you mean, kill the head of state, this, i suppose, could be done easily enough to asad. without making any excuses for the degenerate asad, he is simply the secular incarnation of the degenerate saudi royal family, one the prime backers of the SNC. does anyone think that the investment of saudi arabia and qatar is motivated by concern for democracy and the lives of common syrians? this whole scene smells like libya, or even more so, like the intentional break up of the yugoslav republic.

  7. Given the history of Turkey as the former (and remarkably oppressive) colonial power, any intervention had better be led, and seen to be lead, by the Arab League.

    The Saudis seem to be impatient for this. All sorts of cynic’s explanations for this, but I’d be inclined to think that Assad turns their stomachs as he turns everyone else’s.

    In Libya, UK Special Forces were allowed to advise, but not arm or equip, the rebels. Since they were always accompanied by Qatari soldiers with truckloads of free equipment, this was not the handicap it might have been.

    I suspect that the solution will take the form of Jordanians offering advice and Qataris bearing gifts. Assuming that the Saudis don’t lose patience and simply put in an airstrike aimed at Assad in person, which is well within their resources, assuming the IDF will hold its nerve if Saudi Tornados head West.

    Putin’s support for Assad’s intensive shelling of Homs is easily explained: he’s not a hypocrite and that’s precisely what he advised the Kremlin to do to Grozny when he was still boss of the FSB/KGB.

    1. Or, indeed, if Saudi Tornados head sort of Northish. Now I know how the Americans got the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link