All isn't settled, probably never will be. Not in Syria, not anywhere in that
part of the world. I argued in a paper many years ago (30+) that the deserts
from Palestine to Afghanistan are littered with the bones of a thousand armies,
and we don't have any business being there in the capacity of a combatant. Not
now, not ever.
In hindsight, I could even argue that going into Afghanistan after 9/11 was
ill-advised because of the inevitable mission creep, and mostly because of the
fact we're still there, and the Taliban is still a viable force. Most likely,
within less than a decade from our departure it will be hard to tell we ever
were there, except, of course, for the hatred we have engendered. Look at
what's happening in Iraq now. There were other ways we could have handled
post-9/11, but they would have required patience and maturity, two qualities
nations are hard pressed to find in moments of high stress.
And yes, I would make an exception for Gulf War One, which was multi-national
in every sense of the term, and limited in scope to driving Iraq out of Kuwait
with the additional lesson of what would happen if Saddam ever decided maybe
he'd like to have Saudi Arabia's oil. But even so, there may have been other
ways, but we didn't wait to try them, or even really consider them. The Big
Stick was always the threat.
Sorry, but I'm in a pacifist kind of mode these days, but also aware that so
was lots of the world before both world wars, for all the good it did.
On May 28, 2013, at 1:39 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> Yes, Syria is the ultimate quagmire. We were lucky that we got out so
> quickly in Libya, but all is not settled there now.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/