Skip to main content

View Diary: Panetta: Unilateral U.S. Military Intervention in Syria Would Be a Serious Mistake (24 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Neocons also push for unilateral intervention (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erratic, pistolSO

    Max Boot writes op-ed for NYT giving reasons for US to intervene in Syria.

    Military intervention in Syria is predicated on taking down Syria's entire air defense system. But, without a UN mandate NATO would not join this illegal war of aggression. The US would have to form a "coalition of the willing" to do another Iraq "cakewalk".

    5 Reasons to Intervene in Syria Now

    WHETHER you agree or disagree with President Obama, there is no doubt that he has formulated a coherent approach to the use of American power. The Obama Doctrine involves getting into a conflict zone and getting out fast without ground wars or extended military occupations. This approach proved its effectiveness in Libya last year.

    But the president is not applying his own doctrine where it would benefit the United States the most — in Syria. One can certainly sympathize with his predicament. Syria is a mess, and it is tempting to stay out, especially in an election year. Yet inaction carries its own risks. There are five reasons to bring down President Bashar al-Assad sooner rather than later.
     To prevent Mr. Assad from staging a devastating response, the American-backed alliance would have to create a countrywide no-fly zone, which would first require taking apart Syrian air defenses. Mr. Assad has been using jets and helicopters to fight the rebels; a no-fly zone would quickly ground his entire air force. The zone could then be extended to provide the kind of close air support that NATO warplanes provided to rebel fighters in Kosovo and Libya.

    While our allies could take the lead in maintaining the no-fly zone, it is necessary in Syria, as in Libya, for America to take the lead in establishing it; only our Air Force and Navy have the weaponry needed to dismantle Syria’s Russian-designed air defenses with little risk.

    Michael Doran is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.

    •  "Quickly" (4+ / 0-)

      How long did it take to reduce Iraq's air defenses in 1991? Two months or so and some 100,000 sorties? "Quickly".

      More pushbutton war fantasy from the war hawks: In this case Boot and Claiborne.

      •  The 'intervention' in 1991 did nothing to prevent (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the slaughter of upwards of 70,000 Shiites (300,000 by some counts) by Saddam after the US left.

        The US can't simply go in and hit Syrian air defenses and air force. It also has to stay and protect rebels on the ground. Air cover for rebels fighting inside cities is next to useless and that's where the fighting is now occurring.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site