Photo: Getty ImagesBy Stefan Wolff
As Western resolve to 'do something' over the use of chemical weapons in Syria hardens, military intervention has emerged as the last resort.
Reflecting the exasperation of political leaders and opinion makers in London, Washington, and Paris that nothing else so far has worked, the urge to flex and deploy the west's considerable military muscle seems to become overwhelming. But what could it possibly achieve?
Some argue that carefully targeted strikes against the regime's military assets—air defences, command and control centres, and bases of Assad's elite Republican Guards—could weaken the regime sufficiently to engage in meaningful talks aimed at a political settlement. While this logic may potentially apply to the regime, the problem is that the opposition is so fractured and often seemingly at the brink of a civil war with itself that there is no apparent negotiation partner even if Assad were willing to engage in good-faith negotiations. And this is, of course, aRead More »from No positive outcomes for military intervention in Syria