Postby w3sKer96 » Sun Jun 16, 2013 12:26 am
I also hastily agree that whatever 'interests' that the current administration will concoct, whether they be humanitarian or otherwise, are not good enough reasons to intervene. And it will be detrimental if we do.
I see almost every intervention leading to horrendous, unintended consequences that undermine geopolitical stability and ensure a continued presence in middle eastern affairs and a role as global policemen, something that does nothing to bring about long term peace.
Us waving our fists at Assad will hardly take the guy out. He's managed to stay relatively in power for two years of conflict now. And the other countries within the area with bigger stakes will find themselves intervening.
I think one argument is that ousting Assad, who allies with Tehran, will weaken the Iranian state. But wouldn't that just give them motivation to ally with Shia Iraq, who also helps Assad?
As for the use of chemical weapons, especially gas ones, those are the least constrained geographically of the WMD's. But putting boots on the group or entangling in war preparations like no fly zones would encourage Assad to use them as a last resort.
I could see intervention if I thought it was a purely humanitarian case of genocide, an armed government against an unarmed populace. But both sides are armed and willing to kill to advance the cause. And with fired up Islamic radicals filling the gaps of insurgents, I expect reprisals no matter who comes out of this in the end.
What do you guys think will be the result? With the divisions occurring within the rebel forces, and the outside support Damascus gets from Lebanon's Hezbollah and Russia, I don't see a complete rebel victory as plausible.