Editor’s note: Kenneth Pollack critiques what he sees as an incoherent strategy from the Obama administration on Syria. Outlining the arguments in favor of and against U.S. intervention in Syria, Pollack writes that the White House’s policy has been indecisive due to a desire to avoid committing the United States to a serious military intervention while still enforcing red lines.
The complexities of the Syria conflict touch on American interests in myriad ways—ways that don’t necessarily line up neatly with one course of action or another. There are multiple goals, and multiple strategies that could be employed to achieve those goals, and as a result, there are good arguments to be made both for intervention and against. The only thing that makes no sense, unfortunately, is the path that President Obama appears determined to pursue.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
Commentary
Op-edGo Big or Stay Home
August 30, 2013