Mick Hartley

We intervened in Libya. So…what about Syria? Walter Russell Mead:

This crisis could have legs. Although Syria is not an oil exporter, every moral and political argument that led to the intervention in Libya applies more strongly to Damascus. And while the political, national interest rationale for regime change in Libya is a little sketchy, the case for regime change in Damascus is close to ironclad.

If the danger of genocidal repression was the reason we intervened in Libya, Syria is a much more clear cut case of genocide waiting to happen. Perhaps the single worst incident of Arab-on-Arab violence ever recorded was committed by the Assad government in February 1982 when somewhere between 10,000 (the low estimate) and 40,000 (according to the Syrian Human Rights Commission) people were murdered to crush popular demonstrations against the dictatorship….

If the humanitarian case against Syria is strong, the national interest case is stronger.  For decades now, Syria has been a principal state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.  Hezbollah and Hamas would not exist in their present forms without Syrian protection and support.  On its own behalf, and as Iran’s closest strategic ally in the Arab world, Syria has a long record of arming, training and sheltering terrorists….

Ordinary people in Syria have been watching the events unfolding around the region, and they have followed the news of the international intervention in Libya.  Our actions have encouraged them to risk their lives by standing up for their freedom.  Words like “duty to protect” are ringing in their ears.  If coalition planes weren’t bombing Gaddafi’s forces in Libya, the crowds in Syria might have stayed home.

If the people keep protesting, and the government keeps shooting, can the White House really afford to stand by?

I personally do not want to see the US involved in yet another Middle Eastern war.  The potential that the conflict would spread into Lebanon and plunge both countries into a long period of chaos and civil war is far too significant for me to start beating the war drums.

But the situation in Syria has turned much more critical since Friday’s demonstrations.  Intervention in Syria is likely to involve higher stakes, more bloodshed and greater risks than the intervention in Libya.  We need this like we need a hole in the head.  But the courage of the Syrian people, the brutality of their government, the wishes of our allies and the logic of our interests may yet force our hands.

On the other hand: If Libya could be justified as "not another Iraq", it'd be harder to argue that way for Syria. It's a much bigger fish. And whereas Gaddafi is to some extent a man out on his own who no one would be sorry to see the back of, Syria is far more interlinked in Middle-Eastern affairs – notably with ally and near neighbour Iran.

But…clearly these kinds of discussions are taking place now, in Washington and elsewhere.