#1. Any article droning (pun intended) on about the internal political implications of the President’s proposal for limited military responses to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and the potential actions which might be taken by the House of Representatives. Add to this category any article which weighs in on the hypothetical political results of actions taken on one side or the other. Would the President “lose” something? “Win something?” Would Republican leadership in the House “win” or “lose?” Drivel. Worse still, this is lazy drivel. Heaven forefend those covering the issues would inform themselves about the nuances of the subject, the priorities of the various actors and regional interests, and the complicated diplomacy required to find a sustainable resolution?
#2. Any article or post playing the blame game. Finger-pointing is also lazy reportage and analysis. It requires absolutely zero intellectual effort to sling ad hominem attacks back and forth across the complex terrain.
There are some far more thoughtful summations of opinions, and Nicholas Kristoff’s “Pulling the Curtain Back on Syria,” in the New York Times. He has also written “The Right Questions on Syria,” also in the Times. Kristoff supports limited military intervention in the situation, and presents it as the least worst option.
Richard Price, writing for Foreign Affairs, argues that military intervention is not required and offers his analysis to substantiate his position. For a longer, and more in depth discussion of the military issues associated with the conflict in Syria, download Kenneth Pollack’s “The Military Dynamics of the Syrian Conflict,” from the Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
James Fallows opines about “The Best Result from Congress: A No Vote,” in his piece for the Atlantic. Fallows opposes military intervention and specifies his reasons for his decision. The editors of The Nation magazine offer a similar piece in “Standing Up To The Hawks in Congress.” Another perspective is on offer from Robert Kuttner writing in the American Prospect”s “Obama punts to Congress — and scores.”
Shibley Telhami looks at the question of “credibility,” and its relation to the foreign policy issues associated with Syria in “Questioning U.S. Credibility with Syria,” in which he contends that this focus blurs the lines between vital and non-vital interests.
Interests and regional issues are also discussed in Jayshree Bajoria, and Robert McMahon’s “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention,” writing for the Council on Foreign Relations.