We should help the Syrian people survive their tyrant

Submitted by Michael (United States), Feb 26, 2012 at 18:16

The arguments of Dr. Jasser are more compelling to me than the arguments of Dr. Pipes. First is the moral argument: in a battle between a murderous government and the population being murdered, we should be on the side of the population. There is a risk that the resulting government will be Islamist, but it is a significant error to treat a risk as certainty, which is what Dr. Pipes has done in this case. Experts often get so used to the status quo of the situation that they follow that they assume change can only be disadvantageous, but change can be for the better.

For example, the dismantlement of the Soviet empire led to improvements, not only for the people living there, but also for America's relative power and influence. When action is taken during a complex and dynamic situation, there are a large variety of possible outcomes. One of the likeliest outcomes of intervention in Syria would be a weakening of both Iran and Hezbollah and that would be extremely good for both the US and Israel.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".