In the wake of what appears to have been the large-scale use of chemical weapons by forces loyal to the Syrian President Bashar Al Assad, the United States and its allies seem to be approaching sort of muscular intervention into Syria’s civil war. But the questions that have kept the West from substantive action thus far still apply: What would such an action require of the United States in the long term? Would getting involved stop Assad from using chemical weapons again? If the rebels prevail, who really wins? On this week’s Political Scene podcast, Dexter Filkins and George Packer join Dorothy Wickenden to discuss President Obama’s dilemma and the options he has now.
“Certainly, the shadow of the Iraq War is looming pretty large here,” Filkins says. “We’re all waiting to see the case that the President makes and the intelligence that he’s willing to release. We all know what happened the last time that happened.” But, as Packer says, there are memories other than those involving President George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein at work in this deliberation. “What happens when dictators are not stopped?” he asks. “The history…shows they go to further means.” For Packer, “the only justification for using force” is if doing so would “deter Assad and other monsters from doing this again.”
You can also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or XML, and become a fan of the Political Scene on Facebook.
Above: Activists the eastern suburbs of Damascus wear gas masks as they look for dead bodies to check for chemical-weapon use. August 22, 2013. Photograph by Bassam Khabieh/Reuters.
