Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

Yea, yea, yea (and said with a straight face too). I have read you correctly so it is unnecessary to write a paragraph to spin out exactly what I said in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear if you believe there has ever been a situation that has required US military intervention.

WW2 would be close. Might be a few others, haven't time to go through case by case. Not many, certainly. "Required" is a big word: intervention would only be "required" in the event of a grave and imminent threat could be averted in no other way. I can imagine circumstances in which intervention would be desirable, though not required, though not many.

I'm curious, what exactly do you find objectionable in the criteria I cited? Compelling national interest, an opportunity for action under advantageous circumstances, and a clear, practical, achievable goal... how is that unreasonable? Seems a bare minimum one would ask for before getting into a military engagement overseas. What would you propose as criteria to be met before commitment to military intervention?

There are calls for those who consider intervention in Syria necessary/needed/desirable to present their case to a handful of people who are no more than mere US citizens. The sheer arrogance of it.

Since when has it been "arrogant" for participants in a discussion to expect other participants in that discussion to present and support their views? Kind of hard to have a discussion if people aren't willing to "present their case", no?

You can wait for an invitation to "present your case" to Congress if you want, but it might take a while.

The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

Since when has an absence of intervention equaled isolationism? There's a whole range of ways to be internationally engaged without military intervention. The Chinese haven't taken up military intervention, are they "isolationist"?

I have said this before here (a few years ago) that the US and various citizens (where ever they may be found) want to be the 'the bride at every wedding' and the 'baby at every Christening' ... while not realising that you can't be a player unless you are prepared to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The US has put so much money where its mouth is that it has none left in its wallet. Possibly there are some Americans out there who want to be "the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening", but I see no reason why anyone here should answer for them, unless someone here has expressed such views... are you perghaps generalizing about what "Americans" collectively think or want?

The world is weaning itself off the US hegemony of the past at a speed rapidly increased after the Libya debacle.

The world has been weaning itself off US hegemony for decades. That's not a bad thing; hegemony wasn't good for the US or anyone else. The greatest hit to US hegemony in recent years was probably the Iraq debacle; Libya, which was a debacle of minor proportions if it was one at all (I'd argue that it wasn't though that's a subject for another thread), pales by comparison.

Who is the 'us' you speak of here?

If you refer to the "us" in this line:

If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.

that's referring to the rest of the participants in this discussion. I'd have thought that obvious.

As the US politicians are too $hit scared to face down Russia and China your efforts should (IMHO) rather be directed towards getting that inept White House and the incompetent State Department to shut the .... up (and to get out of the kitchen).

China has nothing at all to do with intervention in Syria, and Russia very little. US politicians aren't staying out of Syria because they're afraid of the Russians and Chinese, who aren't going to fight for Basher Assad in any event, they're staying out because they're afraid of the American voter, and of the legacy they'd incur in the likely event that they bog the US down in yet another pointless, expensive, and messy in a fight that has nothing to do with the US. Is that really an unreasonable fear?

Nonsense. The problems the US faces is as a result of a mega leadership failure.

The costs of these interventions (as stated by others before) is not at the heart of the problem.

Agreed... the heart of the problem is not the silly interventions, but a set of domestic economic issues that does owe a great deal to a leadership deficit, though the followership hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. That doesn't mean the money spent in Iraq and a great deal of what was spent in Afghanistan couldn't have been put to any number of better purposes.

So lets summarise what you took a paragraph in an attempt at obfuscation in a sentence.

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

Constraining domestic spending is but a fraction of it. Constraining spending on unnecessary and wasteful interventions is an even smaller fraction. In any event, I can't see how intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position. The US is declining (to the extent that it is) for many reasons, but I can't see how an intervention deficit can be called one of them