Under no circumstances should the United States put troops inside Syria. That is what we did in Iraq and it didn’t work. Yet here is an article saying we shouldn’t “invade.”
The situation is Syria is actually not too different from the legal, if not the common, definition of genocide. The Alawite minority is using weapons to kill part of the Sunni majority. Also, someone is using chemical weapons. These are two things we say we aren’t going to allow, but we always allow and all the bad guys know it.
The one instance I can think of where the international community intervened and prevented a further massacre is in the former Yugoslavia, and there were no troops there until there was already a peace deal.
In Iraq, there was no civil war, there was nothing happening. There was no nuclear weapons program. Apparently, there weren’t even any chemical weapons. There were no links with al qaeda. We invaded with a massive army and occupied the country for almost 10 years. And this was after we had more or less established a solution to what had been an internal conflict after our earlier intervention without the army through no-fly zones.
Anyone who is suggesting we do that in Syria is completely out of their minds.
But whether a few missiles that might be shot destroying their chemical stockpiles, or whether there should be a no-fly zone to shield refugees, or something else more along the lines of the former Yugoslavia … are these things really off the table in the mind of the left because of Iraq?