We've heard many calls to action encouraging the United States to "do something" in places like Uganda, Libya and most recently, Syria. And of course, as the world's sole superpower, "something" means military action in the name of human mercy and dignity. Do we owe it to the world to do something good with our unmatched military might? Though Don Casler advocates military U.S. involvement in Syria ("Unsympathetic Toward Syria," Aug. 10), such intervention would be a mistake and is hardly in line with the interests of the United States.
Over the past few decades, hawkish bleeding hearts have called for similar U.S. involvement in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, where 283 Marines were killed in a single terrorist attack; Somalia, where warlords killed 18 U.S. servicemen and humiliated the United States into withdrawing; Yugoslavia, where the United States spent millions on an ineffective and wasteful bombing campaign; and Libya, where one tyrant was ousted, only to be replaced with a hodgepodge of fundamentalist warlords who have access to portable surface-to-air missiles. Given the recent American track record in humanitarian intervention, it's likely that we will fare no better in Syria.
Since Russia and China have vetoed any intervention by United Nations forces, only NATO could potentially intervene multilaterally in Syria, though I think it's unlikely. NATO waged a fairly successful air campaign in Libya in 2011, but Syria possesses far more advanced and effective Russian-built air defenses. Any air operation would entail a great deal of risk, something that many members of NATO have no patience for. Far from being an unqualified success, Libya has highlighted some NATO members' lack of commitment to the alliance. A NATO air campaign in Syria would be far more costly in terms of capital and human lives and could further dissolve an already wayward alliance.
I find it even more unlikely that the Syrians will peacefully unite under one pro-Western figure if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is toppled with Western help. Formerly prevented by Assad's brutality, sectarian violence against religious and ethnic minority groups has already begun in the chaos of the revolution. Assad may be a vicious and inhumane tyrant, but if he falls, there will be nothing to prevent heavily armed factions from preying on each other. We saw the same thing in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was toppled, and neither the United States nor any other NATO nation is in the mood to commit to fighting another lengthy and expensive counterinsurgency in Syria.
Regarding Assad's arsenal of chemical weapons, some fear that he could use them on his own citizens, or that they could fall into the hands of terrorists. These fears are overblown. While these weapons are terrifying when used properly, they require advanced logistics and trained personnel to be deployed effectively. It's possible that Assad may order these weapons to be used against his own people, but as we have seen before, military commanders may disobey his orders or defect. Rebel groups may seize these weapons, and possibly transfer them to terrorist groups, but, again, the complications associated with deploying these weapons effectively makes this unlikely.
Finally, I question whether the United States has a responsibility to protect foreign citizens from brutal governments. The United States and NATO undoubtedly have the ability to do so, but do they have a duty to? Why is a war undertaken for ideals like "morality" any more legitimate than a war undertaken to protect strategic interests, such as the 1990 liberation of Kuwait? It may sound callous, but the United States has a duty to defend itself and its interests first. Though Assad's actions are reprehensible, his regime poses little threat to the United States, its allies or its strategic interests in the Middle East. Freedom and democracy are great ideals to uphold, but are these ideals worth the lives of our soldiers?
Assad is an oppressive tyrant who sheds the blood of his own people by the thousands. But does this situation in Syria demand our blood? I may be a veteran Marine, but in the case of Syria I can unabashedly say that I am anti-war.
