Military intervention in Syria? Ctd

Shadi Hamid seconds Anne-Marie Slaughter's argument on Syrian intervention, and goes a step further:

For me, Syria is part of this bigger debate; what role does the United States seek for itself in a rapidly changing world, a world in which activists and rebels still long for an America that will recognize the struggle and come to the aid of their revolutions? The rising democracies of Brazil and India cannot offer this. Russia and China certainly cannot.

Hastening Bashar al-Assad's fall, aside from being the right thing to do, would also be squarely in our self-interest. The Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis would be destroyed. Iran would find itself significantly weakened without its traditional entry point into the Arab world. Hezbollah, dependent on both Iranian and Syrian military and financial support, would also suffer. A democratic Syria, meanwhile, would likely be more in line with U.S. interests. In a free election, a reconstituted Syrian Muslim Brotherhood would stand a good chance of winning a plurality of seats. As I've written previously, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood has had the distinction of being one of the region's fiercest opponents of Iranian hegemony.

I find myself increasingly leaning towards intervention in Syria. Given that the United States has a history of standing up to despotism and tyranny wherever it takes hold, it would seem irresponsible not to fight against this ultimate evil. There are problems to face, yes, both financial and otherwise, but the cost to the democratic cause may be much higher if the world chooses not to act. Bashar al-Assad has been described as a "dictator by accident." His vicious crackdown in the wake of uprisings and the violence inflicted on so many of his people both seem to contradict what observers might expect from this moist-mouthed and apparently murderous dictatorial despot. Consider also, if you will, that his actions in the face of unrest have escalated the public's discontent to the point at which it is almost inconsolable. The damage he has caused will be impossible to alleviate; thus, he simply must go.

Hamid is correct to state that it is entirely within the interests of the United States to hasten al-Assad's inevitable demise. Indeed, Iran may find itself significantly weakened, and a democratic Syria would likely stand alongside its ally. But this is ultimately irrelevant, and the benefits of intervention to the U.S. need only be explained if someone is not yet convinced, somehow, that something needs to be done in Syria.

(Image: A banner with an image of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is on display in front of the Central Bank in downtown Damascus, via The National Post. Previous post on this topic here.)