We need to help the Syrian people

To be clear, we do not want to see troops deployed to Syria. We are not arguing for another Iraq or another Afghanistan—both of which have offered cautionary lessons about the limits of American power. We are not even necessarily arguing for another Libya, since the geography of the Syrian conflict might not permit as extensive an air campaign as was used against Muammar Qaddafi. All we are recommending is that the United States and its allies look for ways to help the rebels hold off Assad’s troops, by arming them or using some degree of airpower on their behalf, or both.

America’s track record when we take on such limited interventions is actually quite good. Think back through the similar emergencies that have unfolded over the past several decades—the situations where an awful government has engaged in mass slaughter. Which of these situations does the United States today remember as success stories and which as failures? Do we generally regret having done too much to stop massacres or too little? In East Timor in the 1970s, we did nothing and the result was more than 100,000 dead. We have never stopped regretting our failure to act in Rwanda—and never will. At first, in Bosnia, we sat on the sidelines and the result was monstrous. But, eventually, we acted against Slobodan Milosevic, and the killing finally stopped. In Kosovo, in East Timor the second time (in 1999), and in Libya, we managed to stop massacres. None of these situations has turned out perfectly. But there is no doubt that, by intervening, the United States and its allies saved lives.