Four Reasons Why U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Unlikely

Reader Comments
Back to article

Hopefully, Assad has learned from Muammar Gaddafi's mistakes. To appease the West, Gaddafi took responsibility for what Libyan mercenaries did, even though the Libyan state has nothing to do with their terrorism. Gaddafi did what Nelson Mandela urged him never to do. He allowed the West to enter Libya. The CIA and MI6 wasted no time in agitating the Benghazi tribes and placing moles in key positions around Gaddafi. When the orchestrated war broke out, Gaddafi suddenly found himself surrounded by traitors.
As NATO bombed and killed Libyans, thousands of portable anti-aircraft missiles lay in warehouses. There were Libyans willing to challenge the No-Fly Zone but, traitors kept them grounded. All the Libyan Army could get its hands on was artillery and infantry weapons. Even then, they could have shut down the CIA-backed rebels but, NATO stepped in repeatedly to rescue them.
Finally, when the rebels approached Tripoli, it was a NATO mole in charge of the city's defense that ordered his men to stand down. Certain Tuaregs who were Gaddafi's body guards were CIA operatives. They betrayed him to first degree murder.
All the Benghazi rats wanted was a quick payday from NATO. They got their filthy payoff and now are fighting amongst themselves. The U.S. and E.U. will begin the shoddy reconstruction projects, destroy the social integrity of Libya, and put that once great nation into debt slavery.
The real free world has every reason to feel guilty for standing by as the E.U. and U.S. raped, plundered, and murdered Libya. Russia and China decided to stand up for Syria and did the right thing by vetoing the criminal desires of Hitlery Clinton, Sarkozy, and the rest in the U.N. Security Council. Iran was selfish for not coming to Gaddafi's aid. Algeria was cowardly for not coming to Gaddafi's aid. Russia and China are feeling the shame and thank God they are all drawing their Red Line around Syria! Lebanon and Hezbollah have little to offer but, they will do what they can to help.
Syria, by itself, is a small country. Whether Assad is right or wrong, the line must be drawn somewhere and predatory capitalist imperialism must be stopped.

Jim in Occupied Amerika of FL 12:27PM March 03, 2012

US has showed its unwillingness to intervene in Syria. First of all protestors have showed that they refused any kind of foreign interferece in their own affairs. In addition, US let the situation to the Syrian people to decide their destiny. Moreover, US dislikes to seem the main motivator behind such liberal movement. Anyway, US supports the peoples who seek freedom, justice and democracy but by peaceful means. And it resotes to military forces when it feels that its interests are liable to danger.

eldinomo of ME 8:17AM January 28, 2012

there is more money left to enter a new war with the economy like this bad but instead of that why america don't sale the rebels their arm like in Lybia, Russian made money that way now aday who ever give them cash then the stuff that they need will be there for them to used for their own war they get rich that way. Promote world conflict and gain more profit from arm sale around the world, it also have positive way you sale your arm to those countries you have some influence over them as well they listen to you, if your allies win the war you get influence over their whole country, well in some war case the more they kill each other the more casualties they get the more hate toward each among themselves less worry for the US in the future in the long run term, in the long run they also need a long way to rebuild their country to catch up with the US in economy in some case because their country is totaly in chaos in wartorn condition, their road and building trusture will be destroy in some ways they must need to hire us back for the reconstruct phase of that part

LonelyGuyUSD of CA 12:01PM January 24, 2012

We Should Never Support American Based NATO Intervention
Should the Ummah oppose and condemn foreign intervention in Syria or any Arab land? . Is it necessary to assume that all those calling for it in Syria under the current conditions are part of a Western conspiracy?.
Let us imagine a scenario that destroyed millions in Iraq and destroyed an ancient civilization by the brutal policies of the United States
The United States' has a false self-image supporting democracy: if it can engage in promoting democracy, that's all the better. If not, promoting dictatorship to serve its interests This is because the objective was never to create democratic regimes, but compliant ones.
Does the Ummah want to proceed from the best interests of, say, the United States' or Israel's foreign policy establishments and their proponents?
Downfall of authoritarianism is rational and just. ( no second thoughts on this)But we must be necessarily very suspicious when it is the likes of Cheney and Elliot Abrams behind the call for democracy.
But for the United States, Israel, some European countries, Saudi Arabia and its minions in Lebanon and the Gulf, it is the Syria-Hezbollah-Iran axis that constitutes the most formidable challenge.
An Iran-strike would also confront Turkey with a dilemma. Turkey would have to balance conflicting desires in the Middle East.
Supporting the demise of the Syrian regime by any means, including external military intervention, is extremely reckless if the objective is to save Syrian lives or set the stage for a post-regime path of self-determination.
Moreover, the external factor will reignite another local and regional struggle rather than simply end domestic authoritarian rule and pave the way for democratic development.
One can be moved by the urgency of saving Syrian lives today, but if this is the ultimate purpose, and if Syrians' self-determination is the desired outcome, one can easily see the perils of military intervention.
As for the question of no-fly-zones that is considered the ask by many, as opposed to full scale military intervention, it has become safe to say that a no-fly zone is a code of sorts for more active military intervention in practice, as the case of Libya makes clear.

mohamedpameen of MA 5:31AM January 21, 2012

"Four Reasons Why U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Unlikely"
1. Its none of our damn business!
2. Next

Dog of CA 12:28AM January 21, 2012

Wow! The striking thing is that the word used above is GETTING - ?? I guess there are some slow learners in the world, Washington DC proves it all the time.

Bill S of KY 9:55PM January 20, 2012

Wow! It's getting so the U.S. can't trust either the Shias or the Sunnis.
Some times it's wise to extract oneself from a potential conflict. But being the nation with world wide influence, how can we avoid it.

mark of WA 6:19PM January 20, 2012