The Syrian dilemna

Article

The Middle East: Where American Political Idealism Goes to Die

Still against Intervention in Syria

Bombing Syria: Six reasons why we shouldn't have

Trump's Dangerous Syria Missile Strike

So You Want To Go To War In Syria To Depose Assad. Can You Answer These 14 Questions First?

The Case for Strikes In Syria Is Better Than The Case For War

Summary

Lots of conservative opinion against intervention in Syria. Concerns range from there being no strategic interest for the U.S. to a war there will be too difficult to win.

Quote

"The U.S. attack is an impulsive intervention in a civil war in which both sides — the Damascus/Tehran/Moscow alliance and its Sunni-jihadist/sharia-supremacist opposition — are hostile to the United States. It is a war in which Bashar al-Assad’s continuation in power, dismal as that prospect may be, is in no way the worst conceivable outcome for American national security."

Andrew McCarthy

Understanding

There are competing strains of thought at play in conservative opinion.

Interventionists proclaim -

• America is back
• Obama is gone
• The U.S. is destined to enforce morality on the world order
• Showing force is good

Nationalists assert -

• There is no benefit to us
• Trump is inconsistent
• We can't win
• We don't know who we are we helping

This debate might be the epitome of a first-world problem. Our power and geographic distance from war zones give us an option to pick and choose. Our position removed from the fray comes with a heavy intellectual and moral burden, but we get to decide whereas victims in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan.... etc. can only hunker down or flee.

How can we look away? How can we send soldiers to die?  The answer depends on our vision for our country. America first and forever?  America the last best hope for the world?