July 12, 2013

An R2P troop intervention into Syria dangerous for West

US TV show host Rachel Maddow with clips from US Rightwingers who advocate active involvement of Western forces in the Syrian Civil War.

My Comment

But there are also those from the Centre and Left who  argue that a Western Responsibility to Protect (R2P) intervention with Western troops "Boots" on the ground, is necessary to defend the Syrian people against the Syrian Assad Government.

There is a very real risk that a Western troop intervention that destroys the Syrian Army would be seen as yet another Western invasion and occupation of a Muslim Middle Eastern country.

If such an intervention occurred the civil war might rapidly become an anti-Western insurgency with former soldiers of Assad's army, Shiite Hezbollah militia and the Sunni "rebel" opposition forces all fighting Western troops. This is what happened in Iraq after the 2003 Western invasion - something that should not be repeated.



Kyle Schuant said...

Our interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya led to fewer civilian deaths and the creation of a democratic government and liberal free market economy all based on sound and honest institutions strictly following the rule of law, and general peace and prosperity for all involved. As well, it improved our diplomatic standing with all the neighbouring countries.

Naturally we should try to replicate these excellent results in Syria.

Pete said...

Hi Kyle

Welcome back and congrats on the lil baby.

I have this over-optimism that Obama is wise enough to avoid boots on the ground in Syria. However based on Obama's record on the Afghan intervention-occupation and because of his lack of control over Republican needs the US may turn up in Syria anyway.

The US presence may start as unacknowledged paramilitary CIA and Special forces raids or if discovered they will morph into "advisers".