Here is an article titled "Save Us from the Liberal Hawks: Syria's a tragedy. But it's not our problem." I have extracted the first two paragraphs because this is such an important issue and it represents fair use to tease you with two whole paragraphs on this issue:
Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of (humanitarian) war. That, at least, is what much of the U.S. policy elite seems to be pushing for these days in Syria. That many of the "permahawks," like Fouad Ajami, Max Boot, and Elliott Abrams, who championed the George W. Bush administration's decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein, are now calling for supporting the uprising against Bashar al-Assad's dictatorship should come as no surprise to anyone. Nor should similar calls from most of the liberal writers and editors associated with the New Republic magazine come as a shock. They, too, have been remarkably consistent, and the magazine's current symposium on what needs to be done next in Syria is eerily reminiscent of the one it ran the year after the invasion of Iraq, which tilted so lopsidedly toward justifying the war, though not the way the Bush administration was prosecuting it.As this sort of talk goes forward, do the voters realize that things are not going well in Libya, let along Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no immaculate war. Bad things happen, just as bad things happen when dictators fight their fellow citizens to stay in power. One problem is, dictators tend to not realize they are dealing with their fellow citizens, but think of those people as enemies.
What is surprising, though, is that despite the disaster of Iraq, looming withdrawal in what will amount to defeat in Afghanistan, and, to put it charitably, the ambiguous result of the U.N.-sanctioned, NATO-led, and Qatari-financed intervention that brought down Muammar al-Qaddafi's regime, is how nearly complete the consensus for strong action has been even among less hawkish liberals, whether what is done takes the form of the United States and its NATO allies arming the Free Syrian Army, opening so-called humanitarian corridors, or encouraging Turkey and a coalition of the willing within the Arab League to do so. British columnist Jonathan Freedland summed up this view when he wrote recently in the Guardian that the West must not "make the people of Homs pay the price for the mistake we made in Baghdad."
Where do we stand? What would we say to our Senatorial Candidates here in Massachusetts? What would we say to are US Representative candidates here in Greater Lowell? What would we say to a presidential candidate on the rope line?
At the end of the day it is our responsibility.
Check out the full article.
Regards — Cliff