I think this is the major issue a lot of the American people have with this whole business right now. Some are totally against getting involved in Syria and some don't believe Obama's proposals go far enough. Personally, I am asking "what is this going to accomplish?" What real results can we potentially see if the US or UK goes headstrong and does a series of attacks for a few days, a few weeks, a few years? What is the best case and worst case scenarios? Putting aside all the lack of evidence, mistrust due to the series of events where the information we were presented was proven to be wrong, what are we really trying to accomplish? Simply stopping the use of chemical weapons? Is that the final end goal? I understand the human emotional desire to get involved and fix all the problems but it isn't going to be fixed with these actions. Allegedly, have been callous enough to use chemical weapons thus far without fear of ramifications. What makes us think that the tragic situation will be less tragic if we bust in?But if we want those deaths to stop, and if we want to avoid repeating the tragedy of Syria, we can’t just oppose. We also have to come up with real alternatives.
Precisely the point. As was clearly stated in the article, there is nothing to be gained, and much harm to be done, by simply "busting in," and this is why Obama's idea is such a bad idea. But would the "tragic situation be less tragic" if an international force operating with one and only one agenda -- protecting civilians -- and which was forbidden from taking sides otherwise in the conflict be less tragic? It seems to me it would, and there is precedent for such things. That is the long term proposal. The short term one is not military action, but diplomatic. Again, I think that's clear in the article. What is objected to is not the rejection of the way things have been done in the past, but rather the sense that the world cannot do anything to stop the massive killing of civilians in civil wars and governmental crackdowns (such as in WWII Europe, or East Timor more recently). The world can do something. Simply sitting back and ignoring these things or merely wringing one's hands is not sufficient, and the only option is NOT coming in and fixing all the problems, but simply coming in and protecting civilians. Again, I think it is eminently clear in the article that taking the side of the rebels (or, for that matter, the Assad regime) is not being suggested and is precisely opposite of what the proposal made would be. And certainly opposition to Obama's plan is crystal clear in it.