In response to:

Syria's Insurrection Is Not America's War

Ken1952 Wrote: Jun 05, 2012 1:14 PM
King Hussein was facing an attempt by Palestinian militants to seize control of Jordan. There was a civil war going on. The other side was aided by a Syrian military invasion in the north of the country. I supported the king then and would support him now. Bashar Assad may be qualitatively different from the old man in Syria. Hafez was an intensely practical (or cynical) man. He had no philosophical opposition to the US. When US presidents were willing to deal with him--as Nixon and the elder Bush were--he was willing to deal with them. Bashar on the other hand actually seems to support outfits like Hezbollah, and not just for the reasons his father would do so--reasons of expanding Syrian power into Lebanon.
In pushing for U.S. military intervention in Syria -- arming the insurgents and using U.S. air power to "create safe zones" for anti-regime forces "inside Syria's borders" -- The Washington Post invokes "vital U.S. interests" that are somehow imperiled there.

Exactly what these vital interests are is left unexplained.

For 40 years, we have lived with a Damascus regime led by either Bashar Assad or his father, Hafez Assad. Were our "vital interests" in peril all four decades?

In 1991, George H.W. Bush recruited the elder Assad into his Desert Storm coalition that liberated Kuwait. Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude,...