Lindsey Graham: Military Intervention In Syria Should Be “On The Table”
With American forces committed in various ways in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, and Iraq, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham thinks it might be a good idea if we intervened in Syria as well:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday that it’s time to consider international intervention in Syria to avoid the further “slaughter” of people there by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces.
“If it made sense to protect the Libyan people against Gadhafi, and it did because they were going to get slaughtered if we hadn’t sent NATO in when he was on the outskirts of Benghazi, the question for the world [is], have we gotten to that point in Syria,” Graham said on the CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“We may not be there yet, but we are getting very close, so if you really care about protecting the Syrian people from slaughter, now is the time to let Assad know that all options are on the table,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Over 1,000 civilians have been killed in recent months in a crackdown against the uprising there, according to human rights groups.
“It has gotten to the point where Gadhafi’s behavior and Assad’s behavior are indistinguishable,” Graham said, and noted “You need to put on the table all options, including a model like we have in Libya.”
Of course, Libya and Syria are entirely distinguishable from each other in ways that make international intervention highly unlikely, not the least of them being the Syrian regimes ties to Iran and Hezbollah, and its proximity to the Israeli/Palestinian tinderbox. Leaving that aside, though, one has to wonder why Graham thinks it would be wise to get involved in a fourth war (fifth if you count Yemen separately) in the most volatile part of the world.
Hopefully by 2030 we can have troops in every single mid-Eastern country.
Hopefully after the 2012 election, we can have some sanity returned to the government.
Southern,
If John McCain had been President we would have boots on the ground in Libya and we’d be bombing Syria. You’d have your five wars.
Graham said nothing about a Fourth War. Intervention would depend on NATO. All people like Mataconis can do is criticize Graham. If he had served the country as faithfully as Graham is doing I might take him seriously. Mataconis appears completely ignorant of what is really going on in the Middle East. What solution is this Mataconis moron offering?
Would we? You don’t know that. Even if McCain was pres and we did have 5 wars, I’d still be hoping for a return to sanity in 2012.
I would also be hoping for more sanity and Lindsey Graham being defeated in 2014.
But what about Iran? Can’t we go for 6?
The Lindsey Graham haters are strange animals. They are like big tabby cats. They expect the US to do nothing but pussy foot around in the Middle East.
As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.”
Or perhaps just pull out of it all together? Sort of like the founders had in mind when they spoke of not getting involved in overseas conflicts? Funny how everyone is so worried about the founders opinions, except where it comes to foreign wars. I think they had the right idea. Make sure we can defend ourselves, but let people sort out their own affairs; the middle east in particular isn’t going to find peace until the majority of its inhabitants want it – peace is not going to be successfully imposed there.
and neither will democracy.
Not sure McCain would have been satisfied with Syria. He seemed pretty anxious to mix it up with Russia. Why fool around with double A ball when you can fight the big boys?