In Syria, Go Big or Stay Home By RAY TAKEYH Published: May 27, 2013

WASHINGTON FROM liberal internationalists to hawkish conservatives, a chorus of influential voices in Washington is suggesting that American intervention in Syria would also do serious damage to Bashar al-Assads close ally, Iran.

Military action in Syria would demonstrate, so the argument goes, that America is serious about enforcing its red lines. Impressed and crestfallen, Irans recalcitrant mullahs would scale back their nuclear zeal and conform to international nonproliferation agreements.

However, given the fact that any intervention by the Obama administration is likely to be tentative and halting, rather than an overwhelming show of military force, it is not likely to end Syrias civil war or intimidate Irans rulers.

The sort of intervention needed to bring about a decisive rebel victory would require more than no-fly zones and arms. It would mean disabling Mr. Assads air power and putting boots on the ground. America would have to take the lead in organizing a regional military force blessed by the Arab League and supported by its own intelligence assets and Special Forces. After that would come the task of reconstituting Syria and mediating its sectarian conflicts. As the war in Iraq painfully demonstrated, refashioning national institutions from the debris of a civil war can be more taxing than the original military intervention.

Because it would take all of this to oust Mr. Assad and end the violence, America must accept the need for a robust intervention. There is no easy solution or middle ground. Moreover, rather than intimidating Iran, a less-than-decisive American intervention in Syria would do the opposite. It would convince Irans leaders that America doesnt have an appetite for fighting a major war in the region.

...[read more by clicking on link on the first line of article]

This article brings up some interesting ideas. While I think the author is wrong in his all or nothing approach, of either going all the way in or staying all the way out, he does bring up some good points. Would a timid response by Washington embolden Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah? Would incrementalism in Syria by the US be ineffective because it would allow Assad and his allies time to adjust and prepare for the next step? Would it be better if we went in with a full scale assault on Assad and Syria's forces? Would an overwhelming offense tip the balance of power?

I am not sure how I feel about this. I had not been prepared for such a full scale intervention but maybe that is what is needed. Not a long protracted one but just in the beginning to tip the balance of power. Then we could back off to no fly zones and humanitarian corridors and relying on the rebel forces to carry out most of the assaults against Assad and his allies. Maybe a Syrian Shock and Awe short lived campaign would tip the balance enough to allow the rebel forces the chance to finish off Assad and the remaining loyalist forces. I am very put off by the idea of US boots on the ground until the Assad regime falls. To put U.S. boots on the ground at this point would be like Sparta's 300 man Army. It would be a massacre of American Servicemembers and I think such should be avoided at all cost. Any Shock and Awe campaign would have to rely on attacks from afar and air-power after the initial attacks on Assad's anti-aircraft weaponry. I am not a military strategist I do not know if such weapon system can be destroyed from such a distance if they could such would be preferable then air-power having to come in close contact with them risking being shot down.

I do not understand the part of where he says boots on the ground will be required. I would agree at a later stage once Assad falls boots on the ground will be needed to some significant degree to secure chemical weapons and humanitarian forces. However to put boots on the ground in the beginning given the conditions on the ground as I said would be a massacre of our troops. The sacrifice would be far to high a cost to pay in my opinion. Such an option would have to be an absolute last resort as it is the ugliest option out of a list of only other ugly options. No good options remain only bad options, terrible options, and options so horrible they should not even be considered on humanitarian grounds like bombing chemical weapon stockpiles the civilian death toll would be too terrible to imagine.

No to be honest in my opinion the West dragging its feet and the US being a big part of that has allowed things to get to this point. All the things people feared would happen if we got involved are already happening without us getting involved. Washington and the International Bodies were naive to think war could be avoided. War is here my friends and it will grow far uglier before it gets better. Had we acted way back when I first proposed the idea about 18 months ago we would likely not be here today and civilian casualties would have been significantly less severe.

We hesitated and allowed Assad time to build up an arsenal, coalition, and win back a portion of his political base through propaganda. We played games with Russia that we should have never played, it was obvious from the beginning Russia would never accept intervention in Syria. We played diplomatic Russian Roulette and caused countless Syrians to loose their lives because we failed to act. We let idealism of peace and brokered solutions cause us to loose sight of the true peril the Syrian people were in.

There is no changing the past the mistakes that were made can not be undone but we can prevent further mistakes by getting directly involved now. I wish it was 18 months ago but better late then never. If we do not act we will be regretting it for more then a decade to come because of all the regional and international implications such a war is bringing. The time to act is now for each day we hesitate will be an increase in the sacrifice we will have to pay later both in terms of lives and treasure. I wish beyond anything it was not so such a cost is most unjust to our Servicemebers and their family and friends after being asked so much in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Such a cost to the public is most unfair after going through the worst financial crises since the great depression. Such a cost to the Obama Administration politically, hoping he could scale back war and he is going to be required eventually to ratchet it up. This is not to mention the ones making the most sacrifice of all since this crises has occurred the Syrian men, women, and children. There is never a just war, no one ever truly wins a war, but war is sometimes what is required. It is not just, what our Country is going to be asked to do, it is not fair, but the situation requires it.

A.C.M.