Today’s question:

Could someone please explain what US national interest would intervention in Syria serve?

Tags:

5 Responses to “Today’s question:”

  1. Pat Patterson Says:

    Most of US policy since the founding, in spite of the charges of imperialism, etc., has been to intercede on the behalf of an attacked country or peoples. Just in the last six decades we have Korea, the Dominican Republic, Lebanon etc.

  2. Stuart Freeman Says:

    This is not a situation where one can get away by saying that they are doing the right thing. That is because the ‘right thing’ may turn out to be the wrong thing in time. This then is a situation when, right or wrong, really doesn’t matter. But action must be taken. That is because inaction means loss of credibility. And credibility is a necessary thing, to maintain, if one desires to have the ability to do the right thing in the future.

  3. jlh Says:

    Suppose we discard the usual arguments about national interest and ask the simple question: What do WE get out of it? By that reckoning, I calculate that we have had only three self-interested, patriotic wars since the Revolutionary, namely, the campaign against the Barbary pirates, the war with Mexico and blowing away the Taliban. And when we think about WWII, we now have to add the considerations raised in Diana West’s American Betrayal–e.g., that we were not only proxies for the French and Brits, but for Joe Stalin.

  4. guy Says:

    Because someone, at some point, must demonstrate that it’s possible to pick up a turd by ‘the clean end’?

  5. jlh Says:

    Read the book and then tell me what you think.