Non-intervention by the US is the correct path

Submitted by Carey Page (United States), Jun 14, 2012 at 09:02

Many good points raised by your readers. Overall I agree with the non-intervention approach as consistent with both reality and a policy compatible with that of our ally in the region, Israel.

1. Perez, President of Israel, recommends the West staying out of the way and letting the Arab League handle (or not) the situation. Souldn't they be good for something?
2. Our helping save the lives of the Syrian people by intervening will win us nothing in terms of lasting gratitude or influence. No matter what we do, we remain the "infidels," a truth clearly articulated by a Saudi General Officer at a celebration of the coalition's victory in the Gulf War.
3. Humanitarianism may be viewed in several different lights. Robert Kaplan presents a convincing essay on the issue in Defining Humaiitarianism at Stratfor http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/defining-humanitarianism-robert-d-kaplan

I believe the major intelligence and clandestine effort of the West should be gated to identifying the location of the chemical and biological weapons of Syria....and figuring out a way to destroy or control them. There is no doubt that Syria will wind up as some iteration of an Islamic state once Assad is deposed. CBW by Islamic terrorists would be disastrous.

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".