Assad and His Droogs
How far should the state go to improve the world?
How far should the state go to improve the world?
At this point, President Assad is beginning to seem self-destructive.
The C.I.A. is evaluating Syrian rebels to see which groups qualify for arms aid.
How did a positive concept like intervention become a dirty word?
The United States, NATO, and Israel have long sought the destabilization of Syria.
It’s the height of hypocrisy for the United States to criticize arms transfers to governments for use on innocent civilians.
The question in Washington should be: will adding fuel to the violence make matters worse?
Syrians face another threat beyond the massacre of its civilians by the Assad regime.
Washington should remember the lessons of blowback and avoid intervention in Syria.
Now is the time for the world’s leaders to show support for human rights in practice, not just words.
The international community should have a diplomatic “intervention” with Syria’s strongest remaining ally, Russia.
Still, it remains an extremely destabilizing choice.
Iraq is better known for exporting refugees than receiving them. But Syrian Kurds are increasingly crossing the border.
Come November, someone’s going to have to tell the next president the hard news: the emperor has no alliance.
Military intervention in Syria is a high-risk enterprise. Here’s a set of principles by which the intervening forces must abide.