The correct reason not to intervene in Syria

[Benton D Struckcheon]

At least not to the extent it knocks off Assad:

In 1970, then Air Force General, Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite, took power and instigated a "Correctionist Movement" in the Ba'ath Party. The coup of 1970 ended the political instability that had lasted since the arrival of independence.[35] Robert D. Kaplan has compared Hafez al-Assad's coming to power to "an untouchable becoming maharajah in India or a Jew becoming tsar in Russia—an unprecedented development shocking to the Sunni majority population which had monopolized power for so many centuries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites

The problem is, as soon as the rebels win, the massacres of Alawites will start. In the ME, the Sunni population has been whipped into a frenzy from the pics of what Assad has done to them. Revenge will be the very first thing on their mind. Do we really want to be the ones who open the door to that sort of slaughter?
So, I really do hope the strikes are just a pinprick. The balance of power there needs to be maintained just to keep the lid from blowing completely off. The real work needs to be done with Russia and Iran via diplomacy, to get Assad to the table and then do the super hard work of figuring out how to get Syria to a point where everyone can live, if not with each other, then at least next to each other without anything more than an occasional village massacre. Things could get a lot worse than that. A lot worse. Letting Russia have its client in the Arab ME is worth avoiding the hell that awaits if the balance is tipped too far towards the rebels.

[MNBrewer]

1. And there are other groups that will be cleansed along with the Alawites

e.g., Christians. Whom will we bomb when the ethnic cleansing begins?

[leveymg]

5. We will effectively bomb ourselves, as occurred twice in NY and then in Boston.

"Nobody could have imagined such a thing."

[leveymg]

2. I'm glad to see people are finally recognizing the religious conflict that underlies Syrian politics

But, Kaplan is wrong - this isn't unprecedented. The French relied upon the old "divide and conquer" Colonial model also employed by the British in their Empire to elevate a favored minority group as a counterbalance to majoritarian power. Minority groups, such as the Alawite under the French occupation of Syria, were often given privileges such as prime spots in the colonial Administration in the countries the French and British occupied. This created resentments among the majority populations. After independence, this became the basis for ethnic conflict and even genocide in places like Rwanda and Sri Lanka.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

3. Pretty sure he just meant unprecedented for Syria. n/t

[leveymg]

7. The elevation of the Alawite happened under the French occupation before Hafiz Assad.

The Syrian Ba'ath party is officially nonsectarian, with a number of ranking members who are Sunni and Christian, but with the Alawite clans under the Assad family in overall control.

[scarletwoman]

4. Good post. I disagree with one part of your comment, though.

So, I really do hope the strikes are just a pinprick.

I'm completely against any strikes at all, "pinprick" or otherwise. I think that it's utterly daft to believe that ANY kind of military action on the part of the U.S. will not worsen the situation all around. And I do mean ALL around - globally and domestically, not just in Syria, and not just in the region.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. The strikes are a certainty, which is why I said that.

Just hoping for the best. n/t

[scarletwoman]

9. If strikes are a certainty, then I will not lift one finger to defend the Administration

when the Repugs in the House begin impeachment proceedings.

[cali]

8. There are many good reasons not launch a military strike. that's one of them.