Adam Elkus worries about the lack of military thinking in humanitarian intervention. Jason Fritz hammers home the consequences:
The problem we're facing is that much of the policy world is calling for action to end the violence against civilians in Syria, yet these individuals – while brilliant in many things – have such little understanding of the mechanisms of war that they are unwittingly calling for things which do not tally with their own views. This is a difficult topic as their calls for action come from an honest place: their own humanity. But a full understanding of the military implications of their policies may require more killing that already exists and will very likely naturally expand their intended ends.
This also puts those who better understand the required military strategy in the position of allowing the continued killing of civilians by opposing action. Do not confuse this with inhumanity. It (generally) comes from the calculus that intervening (i.e., waging war) will create a great humanitarian calamity and that the risks/benefits equation for the United States doesn't add up to force change to the status quo.
(Photo: Blood stains are seen on wood planks in a makeshift surgery room at a private house being used as a hospital in Qusayr, 15 kms (nine miles) from Homs, on February 27, 2012. The Syrian army shelled Qusayr in an effort to regain control of the town in the mostly rebel-held central province of Homs, an AFP journalist said. By Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images)
The Dish 
