How is the Question

As my previous posts have very clearly indicated, I am very much in favor of some kind of intervention in Syria. I believe the United States has a moral responsibility and a strategic long-term interest in prioritizing and protecting human rights. To me the question of whether or not we should intervene has a simple answer: yes.

Of course, that raises many larger and more complicated questions, namely, how? I'll start by saying I'm not in support of some symbolic gesture. What's the point in that? Launching a few cruise missiles really does nothing except waste a few cruise missiles. Those things cost something like $400,000 a pop so I'd prefer not to simply lob a few of them into Syria just to prove we can. Similarly I think the new plan being proposed by Russia and seemingly drawing the support of our politicians is a cop out. While I recognize it represents an easy political situation to a sticky problem, easy solutions aren't generally good ones, and the idea of collecting Assad's chemical weapons and destroying them - while appealing - fails to address the fact that those chemical weapons have killed less than 1% of the total casualties in the three year conflict. In other words, like firing a few missiles, it is much more of a symbolic than a practical measure that does little to help end the bloodshed.

So then what can we do and how can do it? As someone who is advocating action, I feel as though I bear some responsibility for thinking about what that action looks like and proposing some ideas of my own, so with that in mind here we go.

1) A blockade of Syria's ports with the intention of stopping the import (or export) of any arms or materials of military necessities. Stopping Assad and the Islamic fundamentalists among the rebels from committing atrocities means denying them weapons.

2) Tactical strikes within Syria, perhaps carried out in partnership with Israel or other allies, to disrupt convoys of arms to either Assad or the Nursa Front. Carried out effectively in conjunction with step one, this could go a long way towards stopping the violence.

3) Establishment of no fly zones over heavily populated areas to protect civilians. While not all casualties are killed by attacks from the air, strikes from above pose a risk against we can protect relatively easily.

4) Arming of the Free Syrian Army. The ideal outcome for America is for the Free Syrian Army to overcome both the Assad government and the Nursa Front. In order to do this they will need support and perhaps even training. We've reached a point in this conflict when America can and should supply both.

I'm sure there are plenty of other options I am not considering, but again, I maintain that action must be taken to stop the slaughter. That means holding both Assad and the Nursa Front (and the Free Syrian Army when they do wrong) accountable. It is in our national interest to support human rights, and while I do not want America involved in any kind of war, I cannot in good conscious advocate no action while innocent lives are taken for no reason.