Accusing anyone of "getting it wrong" doesn't hold much water unless you can say what you think "getting it right" would have been.
The US has, like most nations, never been overly fond of taking responsibility for its actions, but I can't see how one could reasonably argue that the Syrian Civil War is a consequence of US or British action.
I have my share of criticism of the US approach to Syria, most notably involving the excruciating "red line" comments, but at least they have gotten one thing right: US involvement remains peripheral and limited. There is no faction that could realistically be described as a US proxy, and US forces are not engaged. That at least is something: it was always going to be a mess, but at least we haven't made it a worse mess, or made it our mess.
What do you think should have been done, and what do you think the outcome of that action would have been?
Bookmarks