Sunday, January 27, 2019


I don't understand Syria, so I've got no right to talk about it. But here's my hunch: there's no good option. Staying is bad. Leaving is bad. It wouldn't surprise me a lot if there's no fact of the matter about which is worse, or just no way to tell. I doubt we should have gotten into it, but I doubt that getting in was a lot worse than not getting in. I'll bet that getting out is about as bad as staying. Whatever Trump does, the left will shriek. And that was true of Obama and the right, too. Or, anyway, that's the way it seemed. Whichever side doesn't hold the White House will list and exaggerate all the bad things about whichever approximately-equally-bad course of action whoever is the president happens to choose.
   Needless to say, I could be wrong.


Anonymous Critical Spirits said...

Staying out of Syria seems to me to be the optimal choice.

From a humanitarian standpoint, obviously, it's a tough call, but I think the United States has had more than enough of its fair share of extrajudicial military interventions. We simply cannot afford to keep throwing money at the middle east without a reasonable timetable for our withdrawal-- it has been and continues to be a money pit.

Similar to your point about "not being able to tell what the correct option is," I'm not quite sure we can tell what would rectify the situation in Syria, and if anything, US presence, more often than not, seems to cause more trouble than its worth (at least in that area of the globe).

I really wish it wasn't my inclination to point to cost-effective reasons for withdrawal, but all else being equal I think they clinch the argument.

I'm with you though, I really don't know enough about the situation for my opinion to hold much weight.

I just want the war(s) to end, man.

11:24 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home