Headlines

The Economist

Syria is disintegrating and the West needs to act

Part of the reason for the West’s hesitancy is that, from the start of the uprising in 2011, Mr Assad has embraced a strategy of violence. By attacking the Arab spring with tanks and gunships, he turned peaceful demonstrators into armed militias. By shelling cities he uprooted his people. By getting his Alawite brethren to massacre the Sunni majority, he has drawn in jihadists and convinced Syrians from other sects to stick with him for fear that his own fall will lead to terrible vengeance. …

So far the fighting has claimed 70,000 or more lives; tens of thousands are missing. The regime has locked up 150,000-200,000 people. More than 2m are homeless inside Syria, struggling to find food and shelter. Almost 1m more are living in squalor over the border.

Suffering on such a scale is unconscionable. That was the lesson from the genocides and civil wars that scarred the last half of the past century. Yet President Barack Obama has suggested that saving lives alone is not a sufficient ground for military action. Having learnt in Afghanistan and Iraq how hard it is to impose peace, America is fearful of being sucked into the chaos that Mr Assad has created. Mr Obama was elected to win economic battles at home. He believes that a weary America should stay clear of yet another foreign disaster.

That conclusion, however understandable, is mistaken. As the world’s superpower, America is likely to be sucked into Syria eventually. Even if the president can resist humanitarian arguments, he will find it hard to ignore his country’s interests.

Read the Article

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Screw you Economist. The west isnt obligated to do anything. I’ve got an idea, award Letters of Marque and Reprisal to private companies. But don’t take American dollars an waste it on another middle-east/North Africa debacle.

I’m tired of being the world police, and tired of paying for it.

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

As the world’s superpower, America is likely to be sucked into Syria eventually.

Especially when there are countless Chicken-hawks frothing at the mouth for more war – wars that have nothing to do with protecting the USA – at the expense of the US taxpayer

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

~~Syria~~ The West is disintegrating and the West needs to act

There’s going to be a lot of disintegrating in the near future.

Paul-Cincy on February 22, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I’m sure if we did, magazines like the economist would be reliable supporters

Steven McGregor on February 22, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Translation – “The West” means the US with other (European) countries doing nothing but snarking to outright sabotaging our efforts.
.
Wow that’s a no brainer I’ll start packing my duffle today.
.
Sadly though I do think we’ll be sucked in anyway.

LincolntheHun on February 22, 2013 at 11:55 AM

The fight could last years. Rebel groups have lately been capturing military bases. They control chunks of the north and east and are fighting in the big cities. But the rebels are rivals as well as allies: they are beginning to target each other, as well as the government’s troops.

Good. As long as they are fighting each other, they don’t have time to make mischief on Israel.

rbj on February 22, 2013 at 11:57 AM

News flash for The Economist: The last time the West acted, we got the Libya after-party.

News flash 2: The “West” doesn’t exist anymore. It was destroyed by the kind of cultural relativism and torching of virtue that establishment media like The Economist egg on every chance they get.

News flash 3: A superpower that has to cancel 6 months of routine maintenance and deployments is one no longer.

Ed Snyder on February 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM

By building a wall around the place, just think of all the jobs created.

Bishop on February 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Let it disintegrate.

albill on February 22, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Even if the president can resist humanitarian arguments, he will find it hard to ignore his country’s interests.

WTF? Who in their right mind thinks Obama does ANYTHING that is in America’s best interest?

HotAirian on February 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM

The hell we do!

bannor on February 22, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Meat Fighter on February 22, 2013 at 12:16 PM

. But the rebels are rivals as well as allies: they are beginning to target each other, as well as the government’s troops.

Is that bad?

About a fifth of the rebels—and some of the best organised—are jihadists. They pose a threat to moderate Syrians, including Sunnis, and they could use lawless territory as a base for international terror.

Oh dear, the Damascus Hilton used for conventions and power point presentations of how to fly planes into buildings. Could lead to Al Queda based Linux.

It should arm non-jihadist rebel groups—including with limited numbers of anti-aircraft missiles.

They are the ones wearing gay pride T shirts.

There are no guarantees that this policy will work.

What? Without a written guarantee, the Economist should STFU and STFD.

BL@KBIRD on February 22, 2013 at 12:17 PM

One group of islamic savages, butchering another group of islamic savages?

Why on earth why would we want to stop that?

Let them kill each other to the last muslem, then give the country to the Christians.

Rebar on February 22, 2013 at 12:19 PM

The West is acting…Obama is the de facto leader of the muzzie brothers. They succeed apace under his guidance.

Wake up world, or perish. I predict the latter.

Schadenfreude on February 22, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Don’t worry: our incoming sec. of defense–made stupid by the Jewish lobby’s dumb rays–will be on it.

mwbri on February 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM

No we don’t.

BigGator5 on February 22, 2013 at 12:23 PM

As the world’s superpower, America is likely to be sucked into Syria eventually.

Sorry pal, the party’s over. After a century of shedding enormous amounts of blood and treasure trying to keep the rest of the world from killing and enslaving one another, we’re done. We’ve been footing the bill for ingrates and savages for too long, and we’re tired of getting resentment and hatred in return. All of you a-holes who’ve been partying on our dime while we provide security better grow up, take of yourselves and start acting like civilized human beings. We’re fed up and broke.

RadClown on February 22, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I’m tired of being the world police, and tired of paying for it.

MoreLiberty on February 22, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Well said. Let the Syrians look to Syria, America has it’s own deep and growing systemic problems to deal with.

Liberal internationalists like the fools on the Economist’s editorial board have never seen a problem they didn’t think shouldn’t be dumped on American soldiers and American taxpayers. But guess what? The money is gone, pal. If these chuckleheads think there’s a “moral imperative” for Westerners to involve themselves in this mess, they should buy a rifle, form an International Brigade, and pay their own way to Damascus.

I’ll await their report on how that works out.

Inkblots on February 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

OK we now have real world examples of the ‘West’ doing this ‘acting’ business.

The best case? Iraq. Yeah, sucks but there you have it. AQIM lost lots of street cred in Iraq for years before the bum’s rush for the exit. No one can afford to do Iraq in Syria. No one.

The worst case? Libya. Destabilizing neighbors and having a non-regime factional in-fighting is what is going on there, and AQIM loves it.

Middle-case? Egypt with the MB and extremists seizing power over a couple of years? Tunisia, but it doesn’t have the deep divides of Syria…

So tell you what, why not just air drop lots and lots of arms to every farmhouse, encampment, village, and small town along with thousands of rounds of ammo to go with each gun. Farmers can put out large signs on the ground saying ‘We need more guns’ or ‘We need more ammo’ and we will just drop-ship that stuff with the USAF with precision guidance added to the pallet and parachute. That is way cheaper and easier to do, upholds American values of a free people requiring arms to be free, and generally takes no sides. Heck, its humanitarian to arm the unarmed against oppression! And not a single boot on the ground, either. Just pure DIY by the locals.

Just keep the airdrops going until a civil government emerges.

Yes there will be a lot of blood.

So?

Gonna happen no matter what else we do… better to arm the poor, the oppressed, the huddled masses in situ so that they can at least stop the oppression and stop the huddling bit. And once all the loudmouthed petty tyrants get killed, you will get a civil government. You don’t get the latter without the former. And the hot heads can stop being hot heads and get civilized whenever they want to…

ajacksonian on February 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM

We still have some nukes left…

Ward Cleaver on February 22, 2013 at 12:59 PM

This is pretty rich coming from the t*rds at The Economist. For years they shat all over Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan and decried US interventions. You want us to bud out, fine. We’re out. If you Euroweenies can’t solve the problem yourselves, tough luck mate. Choke on the carnage.

And anyway, when it appears the civil war is about to start killing Hezbollah fighters, why not just step aside and wish them luck?

rcpjr on February 22, 2013 at 1:27 PM

No.
This is their cultural choice.
Isn’t the Economist based in the UK?
Harangue the UK to do something.

vityas on February 22, 2013 at 1:28 PM