Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

You again?

Why not? Last I looked it was a public forum...

As a parting shot ... there are always a basket of options for just about every situation and the earlier you exercise those options the more likely the possibility that a civil war can be avoided. Most people know and understand this.

Of course there are always a basket of options, I never said otherwise. Some are politically viable (assuming the nations assessing their options are in some degree democratic), some are not. Some have a reasonable chance of a desirable outcome, some do not. In this case the decision from the US was to avoid any military involvement. That's not dithering or indecisiveness: they made a decision and stuck with it. That may or may not have been the best decision for Syria, but making the best decision for Syria is not the responsibility of the US Government.

If you think some other decision should have been made and some other course of action taken, please tell us what you think should have been done and what you think it would have accomplished.

Yes but... it is all about the future. It takes generations for a nation to get over a civil war. Outsiders who have a stake in stability of the country/area/region would have a (purely selfish) national interest (ignoring any humanitarian concerns for the moment) to keep the peace.

That would depend on the importance of the perceived stake and the assessment of probable costs (including political cost) and probability of success for any proposed effort to prevent the civil war. In this case that assessment did not come up on the side of intervention. I've seen no convincing argument that this was the wrong decision. If the national interest involved is less than compelling, the cost of the proposed intervention is likely to be high, and the probability of success is low, it makes sense not to get involved.

Physical military intervention only becomes a final last option when all other options have failed or (as in the case of Syria) not even been attempted. So that leaves the US (due to political dithering) and Europe (due to a lack of influence) sitting on their hands and sucking their teeth....

Yes it is probably too late to save the situation... which reflects on an earlier political failure. Pathetic.

Failure to do what? What was the option that wasn't attempted? It's easy to bluster about how everyone who could have intervened (in practical terms, the US) is incompetent and cowardly and pathetic and indecisive etc, but if you can't say what should have been done and demonstrate why you think it would have made matters better, all the bluster really doesn't mean much.