Jackson Diehl wishes Obama had intervened in Syria. Is there anywhere, one wonders, that Diehl would not want the US to intervene in defense of what he believes are the interests of the current Israeli government? He provides no details, no exit plan, no strategy – just a desire to somehow get involved. This, mind you, is from someone who also wanted intervention in Iraq, intervention in Libya, and is now angling for a new war against Iran. I guess he never had an exit plan or any conceivable, practical strategy for Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya, especially their unintended consequences. So what’s stopping him now?
Remember that there was no – repeat no – consequences for any of Washington’s pundits who backed the Iraq war. Torture-enthusiast, Marc Thiessen, got a column out of it. Liz Cheney parlayed a career atop the corpses of 100,000 dead Iraqis. Charles Krauthammer, architect of the torture policy, advocate for Greater Israel, instigator of the calamity of the Iraq war, for which he has never apologized, is still regarded as the dean of Washington conservatism. Daniel Larison – whose views would instantly bar him from any access to the capital’s pedestals (reserved for war criminals, failures, blowhards and the occasional honest opiner) counters with a small reality check:
According to a recent Turkish opinion survey, 58% of Turks are opposed to war with Syria even as part of a NATO operation. For its part, NATO members want no part of a Syrian war, and opposition within Turkey to a unilateral Turkish war against Syria is even higher (76%). Diehl is calling for the U.S. wage a war that the most important allied government in the area could not help wage without committing political suicide at home. So neither Turkey nor NATO would be in a position to support U.S. action if it were to happen.
The Dish 