Drums Along the Potomac

War tocsins are sounding in Washington again, and in London and Paris. I don't have a good feeling about this. I'm not sure where it all ends. One of the principles of war is that there must be a clearly defined, achievable objective. It is hard to see what that might be in Syria. Beyond drawing red lines, vague warnings of consequences, and pronouncements that President Bashar Assad must go, no one has articulated what western military forces might actually do, or what the result might be. I don't expect to see western troops on the ground. Nobody has the stomach for that. But we seem to have acquired a taste for what is for us the relatively sterile and painless use of air power, especially unmanned cruise missiles and remotely operated drones. But those are blunt instruments. Civilian casualties are unavoidable. As the bodies pile up some moralists have begun to object on the grounds of just war doctrine. Not that I agree with the just war reasoning. The prohibition against intentionally targeting civilians doesn't apply. Not since WWII have American forces done that and even then I thought the alternative to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was far worse. The argument that non-combatants in a nation that sends its armies to war are all innocent bystanders is not a sound one. If an air campaign were successful in toppling Assad it seems likely a sectarian struggle for power would follow with attendant carnage that would make what we've seen so far look mild in comparison. Is that what we want? Do we think it could be contained inside Syria? Any prolonged intervention would need broad public support and it isn't there. The president doesn't seem to have discussed his plans with congress, certainly not with Republicans. Efforts to impose sanctions have been stymied by the Russians and Chinese in the UN Security Council. Even NATO, with its requirement for unanimous agreement, doesn't look a likely candidate for an intervening body. I doubt the political will exists for a prolonged military effort and a short term one seems certain to do more harm than good. This is a fine pickle we've gotten ourselves into. The case for intervening in Syria is essentially a humanitarian one. If I thought the slaughter of innocents could be stopped by force I might even be for it but I don't. Nothing short of a full scale invasion and follow up occupation to separate and disarm the warring parties would do that and we are not going to do anything like that. The best thing we can do now is eat a little humble pie, admit that there are limits to American power and influence, and for heaven's sake stop making empty threats. We also need to get over this naive notion that democracy is the solution to all the world's ills. America is not honor bound to support every democratic revolution, or every democratically elected despot. Liberal democracy is the most just form of government we know about but it only works when institutions and culture are in place to support it. It is not the same as mob rule. It cannot be imposed by fiat in conditions of chaos. A broad swath of Central and Western Asia and North Africa is more dangerously unstable today than at any time in my memory. What peaceful people in those regions need most is stability and order. We should be doing everything we reasonably can to promote it. Maybe someday democracy will follow as it has in much of the rest of the world. The last thing we should do now is encourage more turmoil. That is exactly what a military intervention in Syria would do.