Best Syria approach? Pursue stalemate

  • Article by: Edward N. Luttwak
  • Updated: August 29, 2013 - 1:09 PM

The Obama administration should resist the temptation to intervene more forcefully in Syria’s civil war. A victory by either side would be equally undesirable for the United States.

  • 6
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 6 of 6
pumiceAug. 28, 13 8:16 PM

Regarding stalemate: "By tying down Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al-Qaida-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or U.S. allies." Because in this case, the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend; the enemy of our enemy is ALSO our enemy. Help Jordan help the innocents; provide humanitarian assistance and build schools for the children. The friend of refuge-seekers needs a friend.

16
1
mklundAug. 29, 13 2:03 PM

The UN should broker a negotiated settlement in Syria, similar to the Northern Ireland mess. What underlies this civil war? What does each "side" need to gain? What is each willing to modify? At this point people are dying to no purpose. Is it cynical to believe that there are states eager for disruption and war in the Middle East? Why are Iran, Hezbollah, and Israel subtexts in "pundit-land?" Why is Sen. John McCain warmongering constantly on the morning talk shows? Is President Obama being offered the "red flag to a bull" treatment? Ugh. No one loves a peacenik...

7
2
brokenclockAug. 29, 13 2:53 PM

The Assad regime has Hamas and Hezbollah on its side. The backbone of the rebels is Al Queda. The three largest terrorist organizations in the world - all of them our mortal enemies - are killing each other in large numbers. Why should we intervene?

9
0
ahugginkissAug. 29, 13 3:13 PM

@ brokenclock - "The three largest terrorist organizations in the world - all of them our mortal enemies - are killing each other in large numbers." >>>> That's just it, they AREN'T killing each other. They are killing innocent civilians in large numbers.

4
0
Kathy_BrandtAug. 29, 13 5:44 PM

But if we try to intervene, then they will probably start killing OUR innocent civilians as well, just to make a point.

3
1
liberallymnAug. 29, 13 6:58 PM

Let's be perfectly clear. Bashar Assad was clearly defeating the rebels in all areas of the country and doing so without inviting outside intervention. the last thing he or his people would have done was do something to invite outside intervention. So who did the gassing? My bet is on the rebels, knowing a liberal media would carry the story of an oppressed population to curry favor with the Western Governments to come in without reason and drop bombs on Assad; allowing AlQueda forces to make hay with new found ground to attack. The fact this intelligence we received came from Saudi's islost on most Westerners. The Saudi's want Assad to lose so that Iran loses, meaning the Sunni and Shiite battle shall continue for another 500 years. We should not be sucked into this mess with the false evidence presented thus far, and to watch President Obama call off the UN weapons inspections because 'we already know what happened' is intellectually dishonest and downright dangerous to American security around the world.

0
0
  • 1 - 6 of 6

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT