Skip to main content

The Dangerous Simplicity Of the Interventionists

Advocacy for military intervention in Syria may be well-intentioned, but can it achieve the true objectives?
A Syrian Air Force fighter plane flies over the Syrian town of Ras al-Ain during an air strike, as seen from the Turkish border town of Ceylanpinar, Sanliurfa province November 13, 2012. A Syrian warplane struck homes in the town of Ras al-Ain on Tuesday within sight of the Turkish border, pursuing an aerial bombardment to force out rebels and drawing a new warning from Ankara. The second day of jet strikes sent Syrians scurrying through the flimsy barbed-wire fence that divides Ras al-Ain from the Turkish
Read in 

With news of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad crossing US President Barack Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons use and Israel’s airstrikes on Syrian territory comes another iteration of intervention advocacy in Washington and beyond.

The pro-intervention crowd has been quite vocal, and their arguments have become commonplace: “US credibility is at stake,” “implement a no-fly zone,” “arm the moderate rebel groups,” “create a humanitarian corridor,” “let’s stop the chemical weapons use” and so on.

Access the Middle East news and analysis you can trust

Join our community of Middle East readers to experience all of Al-Monitor, including 24/7 news, analyses, memos, reports and newsletters.


Only $100 per year.