U.S. Intervention

C1: Self-Defense and Humanitarianism ". .. this gave Assad supporters carte blanche justification to pursue their own massacres even in the last few months targeting women and children. " I assume you are referring to the Houla Massacre [1], which initially was blamed on the Shabiha [2], government-sponsored thugs and mercenaries, but contrasting reports [3] [6] assert that in fact anti-Assad Sunni militants were the perpetrators and the bulk of the victims were part of the Alawi and Shia minorities. Bashar al-Assad belongs to the Alawi [5] and in turn Shia minority in Syria even though about 74% [4] of the population is Sunni. Houla itself is about 90% Sunni [3], and has a population of about 25-30,000 people [6], while only 108 people were killed, and most of them members of the Shia minorities that support Bashar al-Assad [3]. There was no reason for the Regime to massacre those Syrians and all the reasons for the opposition groups to- a perfect opportunity to frame the victims as Sunnis while in fact most of them were Alawi and Shia. According to sources cited by Dutch Middle East expert Martin Janssen, armed rebels murdered "entire Alawi families" in the village of Taldo in the Houla region, close to the Houla massacre [7]. The Houla massacre is just one example of how it is difficult to tell who exactly is the victim and who is the aggressor in Syria. It is easy to frame the regime as the only aggressor in this Syrian revolution, but is it justified to kill nonviolent women and children because of their political beliefs and then frame the regime? They mirror the regime in their tactics. C2: Strategic U. S. interest: Undermining Iranian Regional Influence Iran already has more influence in the Middle East then the US can ever hope to achieve, and a better way to halt Iranian influence in the region is to weaken Iranian government stability (the government in Iran is quite controversial domestically and internationally) through imposing sanctions that work successfully to undermine public opinion of the government [8] [9]. Creating change/unrest in Iran will prove more successful than military intervention- Military intervention will unite Iran while promoting unrest will divide and weaken central power in Iran. Syria's warfare does not undermine the US's strength in Israel and Saudi Arabia, instead, it gives those nations more power while Syria struggles to stay in power. Syria is not useful to Iran because while Syria is 74% [4] Sunni, if Assad is overthrown, the new Sunni government will most likely not be friendly to the Shia Iran government, and if Assad is not overthrown, Syria is still ruled by a Shia ruler who will naturally be friendly to Iran but of no use to Sunni nations. Using Iran to justify Syria is like using China to justify North Korea, it is searching for a justification that is simply nonexistent. C3: Strategic U. S. Interest: Regional Instability and Extremism Your point simply reaffirms why it is not yet possible for intervention in Syria. With military intervention in Syria, aided by the Syrian Free Army, who is to say the SFA isn't just as bad as the conservative Islamists? Clearly outnumbered and outmatched by the Syrian military, the SFA has resorted to questionable tactics and continues to call for foreign intervention, but if the intervention comes, is it the people of Syria taking power? Or is it the US simply selecting a group they find easier to support than Bashar al-Assad and the radical Islamists? As shown in similar operations in the past, namely Iraq, aiding the rebels can be just like arming the radicals, and does not necessarily mean that they will magically defeat the regime and institute a free democracy. Why arm them when they are desperate, outmatched and unorganized? It is placing too much trust in a group that is susceptible to radical Islamists, and could be another Iraq. U. S. action would lead to more power to terrorists as U. S. intervention is never popular in nations they invade, and will backfire right on the U. S. C4: U. S. Inaction Leads to U. S. Decline The U. S. must choose its battles wisely, because its military, while one of the world's premier, is not actually the world's largest [10]. It has a relatively small active military force, and relies mostly on its superior navy and air force. Your point goes both ways- if you assault every nation that poses some sort of threat to the U. S. , you simply anger more and more nations and the problem blows up in your face. Instead, maintaining a large spread of power in key geographic points across the globe is a far more effective strategy. Invading Syria would cause more problems than it would solve. Instead, amping up positions in places like Indonesia/Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and India and strengthening economic ties with Russia and China is a solution that not only solves the problem but involves no warfare. Syria makes little difference to the U. S. either way, and the only nation that poses a threat in the region is Iran, which the U. S. has already taken steps to mitigate. Invading Syria costs the U. S. more than it benefits the U. S. In any war, most of the casualties will be of innocent civilians- who stays in one place, is not armed, holds valuable land and resources, and has no military protection? Thousands of people are dying everywhere- Sudan, Uganda, Congo, Ethiopia etc. and the U. S. does little or nothing to help. Syria is no different. The overblown and unfounded idea of al-Qaeda actually succeeding in creating a Caliphate is ridiculous- the majority of Muslims in Middle Eastern countries are nonviolent and moderate, and no respected and revered Muslim leader would nominate an al-Qaeda leader as their Caliph. Using Egypt misses the fact that the SCAF still holds more power than Morsi and Morsi will be ejected as soon as the new constitution is drafted. Such fears are unlikely and are certainly not enough reason to justify Syrian Military intervention, especially with the solution of aiding the SFA which is unorganized and outmatched and could be just as bad as the radical Islamists. "[Obama has done] Nothing of major substance…" so this justifies invading any country that has people suffering, a bad regime and a bad neighbor? North Korea, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, Cambodia, Uganda and South Sudan… there is a reason why only nations that pose a threat to the U. S. are invaded. Syria is not one of those nations. Sources: [1]: . http://ooze.us... [2]: . http://ooze.us... [3]: . http://ooze.us... [4]: . http://ooze.us... [5]: . http://ooze.us... [6]: . http://ooze.us... [7]: . http://ooze.us... [8]: . http://ooze.us... [9]: . http://ooze.us... [10]: . http://ooze.us...