niew Brzezinski in May, “would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of [the rebels] against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire.”
Intervention, Brzezinski added, “would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.”
Over the past decade of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans have seen what reckless U.S. military intervention in the Middle East can bring: rivers of blood, trillions of dollars wasted, endless quagmires, and a worse outcome on the other end.
Polls have shown Americans are firmly opposed to U.S. intervention in Syria’s civil war. If Americans let their emotional response to alleged chemical weapons use overcome their sensible aversion to war, it would be the first in a perilous sequence of tragedies.
This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.