No, US Intervention Wouldn’t Have Ameliorated Syrian Crisis

John Glaser, January 18, 2013

Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy responds to the criticism that earlier US intervention in Syria would have prevented the hopeless bloodbath there:

Advocates of intervention frequently complain that the United States could have prevented this fiasco through earlier, more forceful action. This is easy to say, but almost certainly untrue. Last year, a wide range of serious analysts inside and outside the government, including me, looked carefully at a wide range of possible military steps: no-fly zones, safe areas, bombing campaigns, arming the opposition. None could in good faith conclude that these limited military measures would lead to a rapid end to the conflict. Far from avoiding today’s tragedy, U.S. military intervention would very likely have made things in Syria worse.

Critics of the Obama administration’s approach, such as Sen. John McCain, have taken to saying that all the things opponents of intervention warned of – militarization, tens of thousands of dead, inroads by al-Qaeda affiliates – have now come to pass. This is only partially true. The U.S. military is not bogged down in another Iraq-style quagmire, steadily slipping down the slope of intervention as each limited move fails to end the conflict. There is no Pottery Barn rule dictating that Americans must prepare for a thankless and violent occupation and reconstruction. It is of little comfort to Syrians, but for the American national interest this is not a small thing.

One consequence of intervention Lynch doesn’t emphasize here is the rather obvious fact that it would have continued the Iraq War legacy of breeding generations of anti-American sentiment and al-Qaeda extremism.

He also critiques the argument for sending arms directly to the rebels, which, given the nature of the rebel opposition now, very few people are actually arguing for anymore. One other thing I agree with Lynch on is that it might help mitigate the horror if Washington would finally pressure its Gulf allies to stop supporting even the most extremist of the Sunni rebel fighters.




22 Responses to “No, US Intervention Wouldn’t Have Ameliorated Syrian Crisis”

  1. To all the neocon chickenhawks and liberal humanitarians who think we should be in Syria;

    Why dont you buy a ticket to Syria yourselves and get involved?

  2. In Iraq's occupation, all peoples of Iraq were very happy at the beginning, but the US maintained the peace according to recommendation by Zionists and their sympethizers! Ample examples: Abu-Ghraib tortures, insulting people, indiscreminate shootings. Such events created Shiites armies, Sunnis armies, who initially fought against the US, shiites getting help from Iran, Sunnis from "Alqaida pretending Syrian intelligence" whose aim was to prolong and entangle US troops so that "Syria would be next", Iran had an opportunity to spy on US weapons & Methods, in addition "God talked to Bush" who told him that he better stay in Iraq to fight Alqaida in the foriegn country of Iraq; so that Alqaida members will tricle into Iraq – Syrian intelligence fed Bush's thoughts by getting rid of it's own unemployed/uneducated half religious suicidals by trickling them into Iraq, while pretending to be helpless! While Syrian radio, tv, & mosques "Government control" sermons were highliting (US malignant intentions" – The combinations of all the above made the Zionists & their supporters very happy, adding to this faulty business deals between bussiness companies "white elephants" to impovrish US treassury – In addition the Zionists do not like to share borders with US occupied territory – As soon as Americans set foot in Iraq it started building its "China-wall-like" separation wall, which would ward off terror and slowdown a potential invasion! This wall had been talked about years before the Iraq invasion, when terror was more prevalent. This explains the timing of the wall building!

  3. Correction line the beginning of the 7th line:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so that "Syria would NOT be next",

  4. Corrected comment:
    In Iraq's occupation, all peoples of Iraq were very happy at the beginning, but the US maintained the peace according to recommendation by Zionists and their sympethizers! Ample examples: Abu-Ghraib tortures, insulting people, indiscreminate shootings. Such events created Shiites armies, Sunnis armies, who initially fought against the US, shiites getting help from Iran, Sunnis from "Alqaida pretending Syrian intelligence" whose aim was to prolong and entangle US troops so that "Syria would NOT be next", Iran had an opportunity to spy on US weapons & Methods, in addition "God talked to Bush" who told him that he better stay in Iraq to fight Alqaida in the foriegn country of Iraq; so that Alqaida members will tricle into Iraq – Syrian intelligence fed Bush's thoughts by getting rid of it's own unemployed/uneducated half religious suicidals by trickling them into Iraq, while pretending to be helpless! While Syrian radio, tv, & mosques "Government control" sermons were highliting (US malignant intentions" – The combinations of all the above made the Zionists & their supporters very happy, adding to this faulty business deals between bussiness companies "white elephants" to impovrish US treassury – In addition the Zionists do not like to share borders with US occupied territory – As soon as Americans set foot in Iraq it started building its "China-wall-like" separation wall, which would ward off terror and slowdown a potential invasion! This wall had been talked about years before the Iraq invasion, when terror was more prevalent. This explains the timing of the wall building!

  5. We should have put in place : No fly zones : safe areas and armed the resistance. To say doing so would not have helped and would have made things worse it TOTAL BS. Instead we have a total one sided slaughter and Jihadists in the mix. No f*ckin body with a brain can me tell the Syrian resistance and citizens would not be in a far far better position today if the USA would have taken the above mentioned steps.

  6. But US. Intervention DID cause the "Syrian crisis" and without it it would not have occurred, and has been said over other Covert Operations, if they hadn't done itall those people would not have been killed.

    "no fly zones" and "safe areas" – for CIA run paramilitaries – are an act of war and Obama did not want to abandon Plausible Deniability.

    The whole thing is – it has been leaked – a Covert Operation on such a scale that it can rightly be described as a False Flag operation – using middle class counter-revolutionaries and Wahabist Jihadists and apparantly spending a fortune of American taxpayers' money.

    It has become the classical Covert Operation using paramilitaries based in a neighbouring country.

    marcLync's article looks suspiciously like as being part of an attempt to cover up.

  7. What the hell are you talking about? We've aided and abetted these bloodthirsty bastards in every way BUT being their air force, once again, and you're not happy with that? Are you insane?!

    "We should do this…. and we should do that… and… and… and…"

    How about this… We SHOULD mind our own damn business. How about that for once?

  8. Indeed, a covert operation it is! In fact, US intervened in Syrian conflict, though indirectly. The US has turned Qatar, its long-time ally into a tool which is intended to tear down Bashar-al-Assad's regime. It is a neat and efficient tactic.
    By the way, Qatari special services do not only provide Syrian opposition with weapons, but also pump in necessary money to pay salaries to the militants. And the flow of money may be clearly observed – Senator Lieberman himself supported the idea of ensuring that the armed opposition fighters receive regular pay, although he does not believe "it is necessary for the United States to provide this funding itself directly". And that's the gist of this conflict.

  9. Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this article plus the rest of the site is extremely good.

  10. very goods thanks adminadasdasd

  11. very goods thanks adminxczczx

  12. very goods thanks adminascxzcxv

  13. hat communities divert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses, the risk of punishment for engaging i

  14. sdivert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses, the risk of punishment for engaging i

  15. e money in running a government section whose most important job is taking your call when you get drunk in Riyadh. You don't get a great job at an influence mill with that on your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work" needed under current policies. "We have to

  16. asdasdment section whose most important job is taking your call when you get drunk in Riyadh. You don't get a great job at an influence mill with that on your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work" needed under current policies. "We have to

  17. whose most important job is taking your call when you get drunk in Riyadh. You don't get a great job at an influence mill with that on your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work

  18. turkishchat.net

  19. Your blogs and every other content is so entertaining and useful It makes me come back again.

  20. thanks for sharing the information keep updating, looking for.Hope that you will continue with Nice to very useful info

  21. I am who I am because of you.

  22. Gret!