Skip to footer

Seven reasons US intervention in Syria is a bad idea

Following Bashar al-Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, pro-interventionists say America has a moral obligation to get involved. While understandable, this view is wrong for seven key reasons, both moral and pragmatic.

7. A better option exists

The international community does have one more option for intervention in Syria: concerted Western/Russian efforts to an immediate cessation of hostilities and of arms shipments from all quarters, including Russia, to both sides in the conflict. This would be followed by negotiations, without preconditions, for a post-war Syria.

This idea was first advanced by Moscow over a year ago, and was basically agreed upon by US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in June. The stumbling block has been the refusal of some rebel representatives to participate. The West should use its powers of persuasion on the responsible opposition, thus marginalizing the extremists whose influence in a future Syria is rightly feared. Otherwise, this path to a peaceful outcome will remain on the table obscured by the current dangerous drumbeat to war.

David C. Speedie is director of the US Global Engagement program at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs.

7 of 7
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.