Posted on 02/29/2012 9:02:02 AM PST by combat_boots
Our interventions follow certain patterns. Do Syria and Iran fit them?
In the past 40 years, the United States has intervened to go after autocrats in Afghanistan, Grenada, Haiti, Iraq, Libya, Panama, Somalia, and Serbia. We have attacked by air, by land, and by a combination of both. In the post-Vietnam, post–Cold War era, are there any rules to guide us about any action envisioned against Syria or Iran — patterns known equally to our enemies?
1. The target cannot have nuclear weapons. Strongmen in Pakistan and North Korea by virtue of their nukes are exempt from American reaction (unlike Syria or, at present, Iran) — unless they directly threaten our existence or that of our allies. With the end of the Cold War, many rogue states lost the Soviet nuclear umbrella and are still scrambling to acquire their own nuclear weapons to ensure them deterrence, especially against the United States, which has not yet invaded a nuclear nation.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Interesting read. Syria would be about right for intervention, but China and Russia disapprove, so Hanson thinks probably not.
Well, Russia strongly disapproved of clinton’s intervention in Yugoslavia, against their “little brothers” the Serbs, but Clinton needed a war, and needed it fast, to distract from Monicagate.
I would add one further rule to those Hanson mentions. The Democrats nearly always intervene on the wrong side, or fail to achieve anything.
“Democrats went into Haiti, Libya, Serbia, and Somalia.”
Well, we fought the first three on the wrong side, and we failed to achieve anything that time in Somalia. Just as JFK and LBJ failed to achieve anything in Vietnam. HST at least achieved a draw in Korea, and kept the South free—the only Democrat success since WW II.
I cannot see any American interest in Syria. The BSET we can achieve there is to replace one America hating Moslem dictator with another. And kill some of our best kids in their young 20s.
Let them fight it out,,, who cares?
Agree, not only do we not have any national interest in intervening in Syria, but the Russians have prepared the battlefield and we will pay dearly in American blood if we attack.
Those dictatorships are really less of a problem to us than the dictatorship that is being put on us in this country. The democrat party are the enemies to our freedom, the Constitution, and the Republic that we need to take care of first and foremost. If we don’t rid ourselves of the threat the democrat party poses then foreign dictators will not matter.
After reading the title I was going to sign up. Then I read the article and was saddened it was referring to dictators on the other side of the world and not right here at home.
After reading the title I was going to sign up. Then I read the article and was saddened it was referring to dictators on the other side of the world and not right here at home.
LOL
Thanks combat_boots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.