No reason to intervene in Syria

Considering all the confusing and incoherent circumstances surrounding possible U.S. intervention in Syria, it is hard to comprehend why Congress or anyone else would still be seriously considering proceeding with the intervention.

There is nothing to be gained for the U.S. in lobbing missiles at Syria, except to “send a message” that America is punishing the Bashir al-Assad regime for its unconfirmed use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. But oh boy, there are plenty of reasons not to intervene.

Where to begin?

The U.S. strategic interests, or the purpose behind any air strikes, haven’t been articulated. President Barack Obama has not made the case clearly; instead, he has handed the matter off to Congress. A smart move politically, but not one to inspire confidence.

Meanwhile, military officials made it clear to Congress this week that air strikes wouldn’t be aimed at any chemical weapon stockpiles. And the potential for air strikes has been telegraphed so loudly that Syrian military personnel and assets are being relocated to civilian population centers. One has to wonder what viable targets will be left, and whether the punishment inflicted will result in more damage to Assad’s administration or Obama’s.

Under the worst-case scenario, an ineffective intervention might send a message to the world that the U.S. is not to be taken seriously at all.

Perhaps the most troubling thing about this is the question of whom the U.S. is supporting by taking action against Assad. The choices are all bad.

Assad’s opposition is the Free Syrian Army, a loose-knit collection of guerilla bands, some of which are believed to have al-Qaida connections. How can we even ponder for a second the possibility of helping an Islamic supremacist regime supplant the current government? We saw how well that worked out in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood.

And that brings us to Secretary of State John Kerry’s announcement Wednesday that Arab countries have offered to cover the costs of a full invasion of Syria. That is astounding. The U.S. military and its personnel are not contractors to be put to work in the service of unknown forces that could come to power in Syria. If the Arabs want to invade Syria, let them put their own soldiers at risk.

Talk of intervention is getting a severely cold shoulder from the American people. Only 9 percent of the respondents to a recent Reuters poll expressed support for intervention, while 60 percent of them were outright opposed to it.

The American people are sick and tired of this stuff, even if Democrat and Republican politicians try to dress it up as a “humanitarian” cause. The U.S. routinely ignores humanitarian outrages around the globe of much greater magnitude, and why there is even discussion about engaging in such a risky and messy conflict, when so little would come from it, is beyond reason for most people.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Daily Inter Lake’s editorial board.