Found an interesting read regarding how the debate is shaping up on intervention in Syria in Congress. I think this describes accurately the schools of thought on the Syrian issue…
Pro-Interventionist Republican Hawks
A vocal segment of the Republican Party, foreign policy hawks believe it is role of the United States, as the sole surviving superpower, to use its military might to stamp out brutal tyrants and prevent the world from spiraling into Hobbesian mayhem. This faction of the GOP reigned supreme during the post-9/11 Bush era but has lost some of its influence in the wake of the Iraq war and the election of Obama.
Their rationale for intervening in Syria: Bashar al-Assad’s regime must be overthrown for terrorizing and mass-murdering his own people, for threatening U.S. allies and interests in the region, and for flouting an international norm not to use chemical weapons…..
Liberal Humanitarian Interventionists
A faction of liberals has long supported limited, targeted U.S. interventions in war-torn places to advance humanitarian goals. And various Democrats, including the party’s congressional leadership, see the Syria mission in this light: a move to stand up for an oppressed people against a mass-murdering tyrant who has crossed a red line by, according to U.S. intelligence, employing chemical weapons to kill his own people…(A similar philosophy incubated the Clinton-led U.S. intervention in Kosovo.)
War-Weary Conservative Isolationists
Isolationist sentiments are flourishing in key segments of the conservative movement and are poised to play a key role in the debate over Syria. This philosophy has long been an undercurrent in the GOP, waxing and waning over different eras, and has made a comeback since the failures of the Iraq War and more so since the election of a Democratic president, which made Republicans freer to express their war-weariness.
Anti-War Progressive Democrats
They’re not exactly pacifists, but a significant segment of the Democratic Party rejects the view that the answer to violence is more violence. Unless war clearly threatens U.S. interests, as in the case of World War II, these lawmakers are inclined to oppose military intervention. And they’re plainly unconvinced that an attack on Syria meets that standard.
“We are not the world’s policemen. That is not our responsibility,” Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) told CNN late last week. “I don’t know where we got this odd notion that every time we see something bad happen in the world, we should bomb it.”
This segment of the Democratic Party was marginalized in the aftermath of 9/11 but rose up again when Iraq descended into chaos. It saw vindication as the public concluded that the Iraq War was a mistake.
Your mileage may vary….
One thought on “This is how the congressional debate on Syria is shaping up…”
The evidence is not in for three out the four positions! As to the evidence free state of the first; Assad is a tyrant, but so is the Saudi regime, the junta in Egypt is already murderous and Bahrain absolutely crushed the democratic opposition to it’s monarchy. Where the neo-cons are concerned methinks thou dost protest too little.
Comments are closed.