I don’t disagree with us having no mission in Syria beside defeating ISIS.
Like the invasion of Cambodia a half century ago, we cannot let our enemies, actively engaging us, have such safe sanctuaries.
We could certainly make the case that those parts of Syria completely in ISIS control were not Assad’s territory at the time, but he should have been allowed to move his forces back in once the pest control job was finished.
You’re a diplomat, does any nation have right to intervene when the nation they intervene in is in rebellion? What about France helping the US in 1779? What about the Western Powers in the Soviet Union in 1919? And I’m sure you know of dozens of such historical incidents.
No one can say that Syria is not in a civil war, and that parts of it are not under control by its own government.
I do strongly agree that replacing Middle East dictators with Islamic Fundy radicals, or weak politicians who will be overrun by Islamic Fundies, is not in our national interests. It’s been a huge mistake everywhere we try it.
It depends on the country involved. When we have the preponderance of military power and little danger of the country we invade to respond militarily, then we do. If Russia or China is involved, it is a different story. We never attacked China during the Korean and Vietnam wars. We are allowing sanctuaries to be established in Pakistan hurting our efforts in Afghanistan. The bottom line is that our actions are circumscribed by the political realities.
We could certainly make the case that those parts of Syria completely in ISIS control were not Assad’s territory at the time, but he should have been allowed to move his forces back in once the pest control job was finished.
Sure, because it serves our interests to justify the invasion of another country. I am not against our actions in Syria to take out ISIS, but I don't try to defend it with some cockamamie rationale. ISIS is our enemy and we pursue them wherever they are--up to a point.
The Obama Administration for 7 years proclaimed that regime change was one of our objectives. There are still elements of such support within Congress and Deep State. We invaded Iraq and bombed Libya using a similar rationale. The unintended consequences are manifest. The most damaging has been the flood of millions of Muslim refugees into Europe from the Middle East who will transform the demographics of Europe forever. And it continues. There are so many other repercussions of our involvement in Syria including the reintroduction of significant Russian influence into the region and the increasing threat Iran poses to regional stability. The legacy of Obama, like that of Carter, will be felt for generations.
You’re a diplomat, does any nation have right to intervene when the nation they intervene in is in rebellion? What about France helping the US in 1779? What about the Western Powers in the Soviet Union in 1919? And I’m sure you know of dozens of such historical incidents.
We have the right of self-defense under the UN charter and international law. Article 51: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
The US has intervened many times, especially in Latin America. We have also used covert means to take down elected leaders whether it was in Iran or Vietnam. Generally, I support what we have done, but there are limits. And given the fact that we are now the world's largest debtor nation, we must use our blood and treasure wisely. Getting involved in endless civil wars will bleed us dry and weaken our ability to defend our own strategic national interests.
No one can say that Syria is not in a civil war, and that parts of it are not under control by its own government.
That could describe so many other countries around the globe. Where do we draw the line on our involvement in these countries?
What about that Trans-Syrian highway that Iran wants to build, practically ending at Israel's back door?
That's not exactly "our interest"...but it is Israel's...and the Sowdies.