TOWNSHEND — I'm not convinced yet that Bashar al-Assad has actually authorized use of chemical weapons in these circumstances. It's totally illogical for him to have done so.
That would be my first point, one really needs to verify the facts. If evidence isn't very clear, then I wouldn't take action.
The other point I would make is: what's so striking about the Syrian situation is the minorities have not joined the revolution. It's almost entirely a Sunni revolution. And that should be more concerning to people in Washington than it is.
It's understandable why the Alawites would stay with Assad. Understandably, they fear they may face genocide if he is overthrown.
But the Kurds, who were the first to rise up against Assad in 2004, simply don't trust the opposition. They think the opposition is interested in a Sunni Islamic regime that will exclude them and might be be dangerous to them. The Christians, the same thing, and the Druze, the same thing.
I consider that lack of support like a canary in the mine, and we ought to pay more attention to it.
* * *
I don't think our military involvement will tip the balance in Syria. If anything, it's just going to get more people killed, and it's not clear that the alternatives are going to lead to anything better than the current situation.
I approach this issue as somebody who's basically been an interventionist and who was one of strongest hawks in the Clinton administration when if came to Bosnia, and on Libya.
There's a belief in the U.S. that whatever the situation is, we have to do something about it. That's not necessarily true. If there's nothing we can do that will be useful, if our intervention will not necessarily lead to a better outcome, then as horrible as the situation is, there's not justification for actually intervening.
If military intervention is not going to be effective, then we shouldn't do it. If it's not clearly going to lead to a better situation, then we shouldn't do it.