Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
First I'm not opposed to acting if our leadership believes it is in our national interests to do so. Those interests may not be directly related to our security, but a larger strategic interest of sustaining U.S. leadership.
I'd be very nervous about arguments for intervention based solely or largely on a hypothetical need to exercise leadership. If "leadership" means expending blood and treasure and wading into situations without clear, practical, and achievable goals, to hell with it. If "leadership" means appointing ourselves as global police force, to hell with it. Draining our resources, strength and money to no clear and necessary purpose is a far greater risk than losing status as global leader... a status which has not gained a great deal for us in the past.

In the cited plan, this:

B) Political process aimed at stabilizing conflict and protecting all communities’ interests;
seems a major sticking point. It is simply not a practical goal. We have no means to achieve it and it seems aspirational at best, though I'd be more inclined to use the word "fantasy". Whether Assad wins or loses, Syria will be an unholy mess for a long time to come. The question for us is whether it should be our mess.