Syrian Quagmire?

(Image by Bob Gorrell)

For the past couple of days, my friends have been discussing the Syrian Civil War.

What can the US do?

What should the US do?

Nearly all the commentators we read vote "No" for any kind of intervention.

Ralph Peters cites the lack of post-war/bombing campaign in both the Bush and Obama Administrations have ended "less than satisfactorily" , to say the least.

The Diplomad has been busy these past couple of days.  First, he warns us we're on a "bomb until we think of something to do" treadmill just like we did against Libya.

Then he brings up an interesting anecdote on where Syria got the chemical munitions the Asad Regime is said to be employing. 

Finally, he comments on something Mark Steyn has done repeatedly:  That Democrats will launch strikes/wage wars in places where we have absolutely no national interest--like Libya and now, possibly Syrian.

Edward N. Luttwak advocates a perpetual war, with no winner will be in the US's best interest.

Which got one friend thinking:

"...the only thing in Syria that benefits us is continued fighting and no one victorious. I've been working it out in my head what the downsides are -- I think the main one is that the eventual victors will be some bad ass, pissed off dudes. Still, a proxie war between our enemies is not all that bad a thing.  It reminds me of the old Star Trek episode [A Private Little War] where the Federation and Klingons kept providing better and better weapons to the warring sides to keep things balanced."

But as we discussed various "Star Trek Options," the US Navy is readying destroyers and Team Obama is concocting its rationale for striking Syria.