The idea of Responsibility to Protect may require some reevaluation.

Well reasoned, and yes, it seems like the Obama administration and the DoD agree on this matter.

But:

"As the George W. Bush administration has instructed us, getting into these regional messes is always a lot harder than getting out."

You mean the opposite, correct? A lot easier than getting out?

.... this is an ARMED REVOLT.

Assad is fighting the Free Syrian Army, and I am rather dumbfounded that the American media appear to be having trouble understanding what the word "Army" means in the phrase Free Syrian Army.

That Free Syrian Army seized a city by force of arms, and their reason for doing so was to topple Assad's regime by shooting bullets at it, coz' that's what Rebel Armies do.

"No kill zones"

This whole hangwringing What Should We Do? What Should We Do? just beggars belief.

A Rebel Army just tried to overthrow Assad's regime, and Assad's Army wasted no time in shooting back at them.

Q: What should the west do about that?
A: Nothing.

Q: Why not?
A: This is a fight between two Syrian Armies: one is a national army, the other is a rebel army.

Q: Tragic?
A: Yes.

Q: America's business?
A: No.

It really is that simple.

right?

LOL

Lamentably, a Tar Baby comes in many shapes, forms and fashions, speaking many languages. This situation, horrible and tragic though it be, is a Tar Baby. And the Brier Patch has been recently denuded. That leaves nowhere to go.

Wonder why somebody doesn't ask the Russians and the Chinese to step in and sort things out. (Oh, yeah, they'll be right over!)

Mr. Miller, a noted neocon, is horrified at what is occurring in Syria. He mentions that the regime is fostering internal divisions, devastating the freedom fighters as in Homs and our involvement in the situation is practically nil.

Syria’s civil disunion precedes the rise of Hafez al-Asad by decades. Prior to the end of World War I, the imperial powers of Britain, France and Russia had already staked claims. Contrary to the desires by Sharif Hussein or the King-Crane Commission, the majority of inhabitants sought an independent entity. The allocation of territories, especially by the French, heighten the sense of uniqueness and promoted the sectarian, ethnic and regional divisions. In its mandate for Syria, France used its relationship with the Maronite Christian sect to create a separate nation. By adding additional Sunni and Shiite areas to a core Christian bloc, Paris laid the seeds of Lebanon’s travail. In the rest of its imperial domain, France splintered the area along religious lines as in separate area for the Alawites, ethnic as with the Druze and regional as in Damascus and Aleppo. When the French colonial ended with the conclusion of World War II, the Syrian elites that took power reflected the two decades of French “divide and conquer.” For the next quarter century, Syria was a basket case as one general after another, one government after another, union and dissolution with Egypt, and outside Arab and foreign governments vied for control of Damascus. This internal struggle did not end until Hafez al-Asad took power in November 1970.

The Asads confronted a country that had a greater regional or pan-Arab sense than a national one. To the Sunnis, the Alawaites are heretics. Soon after his arrival, the Muslim Brotherhood initiated a civil war that would last from 1972 to1982. It was marked by acts of terrorism as well as out and out battles like that of Hama. It is not coincidental that many of the same elements that opposed Hafez have taken advantage of present situation to overthrow the son. The areas that are in open revolt are also areas that have the strongest ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. In one scene taped by an “undercover” CBS journalist in Homs, a young boy is held aloft shouting that the “people” want a true Muslim leader. The implication is quite clear that the Alawaites are not Muslims, which raises concern for their safety let alone their livelihood.

Mr. Miller’s statement that the US has been blameless in contributing to the spiraling violence is an understatement. Presently, we have our armed forces stationed in Jordan and Turkey. Arms and money transfers that are reaching the rebels are crossing not only Iraq’s border but Lebanon’s, Jordan’s and Turkey’s. The sanctions and trade embargoes have not only hurt the regime, but has injured the citizens resulting in either more of them taking up arms because of deteriorating conditions or declaring support for the government. The slaughter that outrages the public has been assisted by the media in the West as well as the GCC. These reports included both factual as well as fictitious details that the insurgents issue. Apparently, many have forgotten the “stories” about Iraq that built up public opinion for our 2003 invasion. If our concern is about the deaths of innocents, then one would imagine that the deaths of millions in Africa would claim the focus of our attention. It does not. While we ignore the plight of some and not others or why we champion democracy in one nation and overlook others deals more with stratagem than philanthropic desires.

Mr. Miller did mention what is really behind our solicitude. It is the power game being played out by Iran and the US-NATO-GCC. The prize is none other than the control of the Persian Gulf and oil. The Riyahd-Washington axis that toppled Saddam’s Iraq (which was a regional barrier to Iran) is maneuvering pieces on the board to block Tehran. In this contest, the removal of Syria as a Iran’s junior partner is viewed with favor. The monarchs or generals of the Arab League care little about democracy or human rights. But as a cover to destroy the Damascus regime, it becomes a useful narrative.

The collapse of Bashar al-Asad is being portrayed as a panacea for the spread of Iranian influence. The unintended consequences that Mr. Miller alludes to could very well be worse situation. The dissolution of Syria certainly would not be helpful to anyone. Sectarian violence or ethnic cleansing would see far larger numbers killed. The triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood may also threaten neighbors like Lebanon and Iraq. A renewal of civil war in Lebanon or sectarian bloodshed in Iraq are quite real outcomes. A Sunni-Shiite clash would involve many areas and states and could kick off warfare in the Gulf. The presence of al-Qaeda (which Mr. Miller ignored) in Syria offers the organization another area for evolution and growth. Although not widely reported on, al-Qaeda is one of the parties that is trying to unseat Asad--making the US and al-Qaeda working together.

On the humanitarian side, this regime killed thousands of people before the army splitting into regular Army and a Free Syrian Army, and the regime is willing to kill thousands more to stay in power. The world has a responsibility to protect the civilians, but it is a different story if this really matters.

On the practical side, Iran now has influence throughout the region all the way to the Mediteranian (Iraq, Syria and Lebanon). This threatens stability throughout the region and is bound to further expansion if no one moves on this. Is it really in the interest of the US to let Iran have such an influence or is it better for the US to limit it? If it is the later, then learn to live with nuclear Iran and stop complaining about it.

I'll keep it short and sweet...Why aren't we quicker to get involved? Ultimately, it goes against our foreign relations interests, specifically, Afghanistan. What do you think would happen to the Northern Distribution Network, part of which goes through Russia, if we interdict without their approval in Syria? Last time I checked, about 75% of all non-lethal supplies are funneled through there and at least 85% of all fuel for Afghanistan is shipped via that route as well.
Also, just reading a bit, you will find that since 2007, Syria has deployed a very elaborate and modern air defense system, a little birthday gift from Russia. It was in response to Israel destroying a nuclear reactor in Syria a few years back. This would mean the high likelihood that the US would lose pilots/planes in any type of No Fly Zone or air response to Assad. Those two reasons alone, we cannot and will not make any moves until they are resolved.

A quagmire implies that we would even occupy Syria. We wouldn't. Our task is to overthrow Assad.

So it's a lot more like your Libya model rather than the Egypt model. It is a replacement rather than an overthrow. We're not nation building in Libya.

Yes, this would weaken the Iranian mullah-ocracy. Consider it a proxy war with the rest of the Middle East on our side.

Aaron David Miller has a delightfully misguided and ultimately naive vision of America's influence and role in the Syrian civil war. All that is happening in the Middle East today and in the visible future is a direct result of George W Bush's appalling policy on the Middle East fighting two fruitless wars in unison in Afghanistan and Iraq while pushing its country into bankruptcy through the most mismanaged economy the world has ever seen. Had it not been for some socialist medicine the American economy would have crippled not only the USA but the rest of the world with it.

Bush acceded to every Israeli demand in the Palestinian Israeli peace talks which were a beard to allow Israel to continue expropriating Palestinian land and building settlements in the West Bank and to ethnically cleanse Jerusalem. Israel was so embolden that today we see the tail wagging the dog as AIPAC lobby congress to pass sufficient laws to leave President Obama with no other policy option than war with Iran. Imagine a tiny country of seven million dictating policy to the only super power in the world.

It isn't the USA's business to involve itself in in the Arab region. It has already sowed the seeds of unrest for decades to come throughout the entire region. And depending on the Arab League well that has to be the biggest joke yet and growing bigger. Egypt was the uncontested de facto leader of the past but today it is preoccupied defining a democratic state, Iraq is likely to slip into civil war at any time and with Syria in a civil war the three major contenders for the head of the Arab world leaves Saudi Arabia leader by default.

Saudi Arabia has already showed its strength by invading Bahrain at their suggestion to the Sunni King Khalifa. Saudi sent in 1,400 troops to quell peaceful demonstrations where 80% of the 300,000 population are Shia Muslims. And with a hypocrisy hard to rival Saudi Arabia demand Bashar Al Assad to set his people free and give them their democracy.

One thing is sure Syria are a lot more powerful than the other Arab countries the USA have been tinkling with. First and foremost it has two permanent members of the UN Security Council, China and Russia, backing it. On the UN Security Council the USA's hypocrisy is hard to match. It tells Russia and China that they and their allies are isolated in the world not mentioning their own isolation every time there is a vote on Israel.

President Obama if you want to get re-elected concentrate on the economy and saving the country money not foreign adventures that will only weaken you more and you will lose credibility and power from friend and foe alike.

If America involve itself in any more adventures in the Middle East it will have lost its sanity. The President and the administration and the Congress of America's first and foremost responsibility is to its own citizens who are suffering as trillions are heaped into wars that are not America's business and with experts like the author of this article they are best to ignore and concentrate in getting their own house in order.

All US foreign policy in the Mideast revolves around Israel. US will only act in Syria if Israel wants it. Simple as that.

ADM is American Middle Eastern policy; decorous, discreet, dsyfunctional and dumb. Dangerously destructive too. Racist, hegemonic, greedy and sad.

Aaron is one more neo-colonial opportunist whose greed exceeds his Google. Alternatively ADM loves his Talmud more than his browser.

ADM and Congress share a faith in God, Tribes, and Guns.

Already we have three Islamic states in place of three nominally secular countries in ME. The desecration of CW soldiers graves happened in Libya, Egyptians have MB and the clamor is increasing for Shariah law. In Tunisia, there is a continuous attack on Universities around to change the curriculum that conforms with Islamic past.

The moot question is why can't these countries have the type of government that they want?

http://thepoliticalopportunist.blogspot.in/2012/03/religiousterrorism-drugs-without.html

The US has been fostering dissident groups in Syria for years and is now encouraging the supply of weapons to the rebels. US, French, UK, and Israeli weapons have been captured by government forces. The deaths Aaron Miller bemoans are arguably a direct consequence of US interference in the country. The soi-disant Friends of Syria are in fact enemies of the Syrian people but friends of the US. The majority of Syrians recently voted for the new draft constitution but the opposition groups, supported by Western funds and arms, boycotted the vote as they had earlier refused, and still refuse, to take part in conciliation discussions. Again, the majority of Syrians do not want revolution and they do not want outside, particularly US, interference, they want changes; the new draft constitution is a sound step in that direction and they overwhelmingly voted for it. But did the US media carry film of the peaceful queues lining up in polling stations? The largest demonstrations in Damascus have been for the government. Is that broadcast in the US?

The Egyptian uprising is far from over due to US efforts to suborn their military so comparisons there are meaningless while the outcome of US/NATO interference in Libya is a bloody disaster that will take generations to resolve.

For all the media rabbiting on about human rights and Clinton shuddering with horror at the manifold deaths, morality has sweet nothing to do with foreign policy. If it had, the West would be guarding the Syrian borders to prevent arms reaching either side, rather than ushering them in. Miller dismisses the UN but, again, it is the US manipulation of the UN that weakens it. The Security Council, after all, put an embargo on the supply of arms to Libya but the US decided it did not apply to the rebels. Is it any wonder Russia and China would not agree to such a resolution again?

To much of the world, US foreign policy appears to be unravelling, and with people sharing Aaron Miller's mindset it is hardly surprising.

I don't doubt that everything Mr. Miller said is true, but I'm sick of hearing all the reasons why intervention would be problematic. Problematic compared to what? What is the alternative? While we're wringing our hands, people are dying. It's easy to do the right thing when it's easy to do the right thing, but when it really counts is when it's difficult.

In my opinion, The Syrian government’s repression is absolutely abhorrent (as this video shows), and advocating the fall of Assad is Slaughter’s prerogative. But let’s not pretend that her preferred strategy is something other than regime change through proxy war. This is a potentially very costly policy (as Marc Lynch points out), and its advocates ought to be forthright about the risks of escalation. Real debate isn’t advanced by delicate euphemisms.

They should be forced to integrate palestinians into their citizenry or lose American funding. I'm well aware that will never happen. It's unfortunate that we use them to keep Iran at bay. It's unfortunate that we, as Americans, perpetuate the belief that Jews and Arabs have "been fighting for centuries" when in fact the Jewish sazkove kancelare people abandoned the Palestine to avoid eradication from the Romans. I had the good fortune of taking two "History of the Middle East" courses at university with a Jewish professor from New York who rightfully compared Zionism to Facism.