Intervention in Syria and the Myth of the “Exit Strategy” by Thomas M. Nichols. War on the Rocks
… When someone says “tell me how it ends,” it’s another way of saying: “I just don’t happen to like this particular case for intervention,” for whatever reason. I am not going to look too deeply into Munson’s motives here, and will take him at his word that he thinks that intervening in any way in Syria will do more harm than good. (“More harm than good,” by the way, is not the same as the “prospect for success” criterion.)…
Comments
If you are looking for a…
If you are looking for a cost-effective solution for your tasks, you have come to the right place. Students of all academic levels should be able to order essays at an affordable price, whether they buy 2-page cheap essays or 40-page dissertations from a company. Whether you write essays for which you get good grades or not, finding affordable essays is a viable option for you.
Cheap Essays is a reliable company that deals with various types of writing assignments. Cheap Essays offers students from around the world high quality work at a fair price. Cheap online essay Independent essay writers can help you live a happier life, as they understand how important it is to write an A +, even if you don't feel like it. Do not hesitate to buy essays from us, as our inexpensive writing services have been active in the field of academic writing for many years. We know what students need and are ready to offer you help with scientific work.
Addendum:
About 1/3 down this article by Nichols:
"But whatever Munson’s motives, I find his reasoning inconsistent: he was willing to wade into the fighting in Kosovo over a genocide that hadn’t even happened yet, and he was willing to support sending tens of thousands of Marines into a complicated situation in Somalia, but he is deeply opposed to fighting in Syria despite the actual use of chemical weapons against civilians. So, what’s changed? Why those but not this?"
What has changed, I suggest, is the belief that we could -- via the population rather than via the regime -- more quickly, economically and effectively achieve a "better peace" re: these outlying states and societies. (Herein, a "better peace" to the United States meaning the transformation of the outlying state and society more along modern western political, economic and social lines.)
This belief, that recently put regime change (and the US military to effect regime change) in the lead; this such belief has now been largely discredited and abandoned.
Now we believe that the quicker, more economical and more effective way to achieve outlying state and societal westernization is via the regime.
This such understanding and decision explaining:
a. Why diplomacy has been put back in the lead. And
b. Why the role of the US military now is (via BPC, etc.) to help various regimes stand against populations that are unwilling to make the necessary transitions (to modern western political, economic and social norms).
This, I suggest, answers the author's question: "What has changed?"
In the recent past, it was thought that populations, freed from governments/regimes/rulers that denied them (the populations) a western way of life and a western way of governance; these populations would, if thus liberated, quickly, easily and, mostly on their own, adopt modern western ways. Thereby, becoming more peaceful, prosperous and productive and a positive example to other outlying states and societies.
It was on this basis, one might suggest, that we intervened militarily -- as we did -- in such places as Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Our subsequent experiences, however, in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, proved the hypothesis provided in the first paragraph above to be false.
Now we have no expectation that populations, liberated from their oppressive regimes will, quickly, easily and, mostly on their own, adopt modern western ways. We realize now that these populations, thus liberated may, in fact, adopt ways of life and ways of governance which are even more detrimental to American interests than that of the former, overthrown regime.
This being the now-understood case, the rational/reasoning for military intervention -- for the purpose of regime change in the cause of outlying state and societal westernization -- this would seem to have evaporated.
Thomas never quite made his point about success criteria that would justify why we should intervene in my opinion. I can't speak for Pete Munson's argument, and I disagree with Thomas's that the military said it was too hard. The Pentagon always comes up with outlandish claims for force overmatch that can usually be disregarded. Forget the exit strategy, what would we accomplish by weakening Syria's military and removing Assad? Would that leave us in a better position strategically? Thomas cites Libya was easy, but failed to mention that the fall of Kaddafi was one of the principle enablers of Jihad in Mali and Nigeria due to the proliferation of weapons from Libya.
On the other hand, looking the situation from a purely humanitarian perspective our intervention "may" have saved tens of thousands of lives. Only nation-states currently have the industrial capacity that can be leveraged to kill that many people. We see terrorists kill a hundred here and there, but state's with their modern weapons can kill thousands here and there.
Thomas also failed to address if making a stand in Syria was worth provoking Russia and Iran, again would that put us in a better position strategically, or should we have save our resources to direct against a more appropriate military objective?
Obviously drawing a line in the sand and backing down was shameful and probably hurt us strategically, but that is a separate issue from the wisdom of actually intervening.