The U.S. and European allies in the so-called “Friends of Syria” took another step down the slope toward military intervention this week. In a Paris conference, the talk was tough, especially from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Washington Post began its story, “The United States, France and 13 other nations demanded Thursday that Syria immediately cease military operations against rebel forces and allow unfettered deployment of U.N. observers, suggesting that use of force will be considered if Damascus fails to comply.”
It continued by quoting Sec. Clinton making the suggestion more concrete: “I think we have to do more to take stronger action against the Assad regime,” she said. “We need to start moving very urgently in the Security Council for a Chapter 7 sanctions resolution, including travel, financial sanctions, an arms embargo and the pressure that that will give us on the regime to push for compliance with Kofi Annan’s six-point plan.”
The New York Times added that “Mrs. Clinton said the United States was increasing its nonmilitary aid. Other countries may be doing more with military training. But ‘we are expanding our communications, logistics and other support for the Syrian opposition,’ she said.”
One might think that after Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, we have learned that military intervention usually does not solve the problems it purports to, and in fact, many times exacerbates them. Yet with expanded drone strikes in Yemen, the continuing threat of attacks on Iran, and the growing war talk on Syria, we seem to have learned nothing. Stay tuned for the next war.
Duane Shank is Senior Policy Advisor at Sojourners. You can follow him on Twitter @DShankDC.