5 minutos de Síria
Este artigo, de Evan McMurry, da Media ITE, abarca artigos prós e contras sobre a intervenção norte-americana na Síria. Veja a lista abaixo
Fonte do artigo: Mediaite.com / Imagem: Reuters
1. Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: Ten Syria Lessons
“When you set out to take Vienna, take Vienna.” Empty words and half-measures have only emboldened Assad, as will a couple of cruise missiles that fail to knock out chemical weapons, don’t do real damage to Assad’s forces and fail to protect civilians. Unfortunately, that is precisely what, according to news reports, the president intends to do. A strike that leaves Assad with his military advantage and does not attempt to destroy chemical weapons will be useless and, worse, convince Assad and others that the downside of using weapons of mass destruction is slight.
2. John Hudson, FP: Architect of Syria War Plan Doubts Surgical Strikes Will Work
“I made it clear that this is a low cost option, but the broader issue is that low cost options don’t do any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and objectives,” he said. “Any ship officer can launch 30 or 40 Tomahawks. It’s not difficult. The difficulty is explaining to strategic planners how this advances U.S. interests.”
3. Ken Dilanian, LA Times: Punitive strikes ineffective, even counterproductive, analysts say
“Bin Laden canceled a planned meeting at one of the bombing sites, and he and many of his top lieutenants escaped unharmed. Documents declassified in 2008 suggested the strikes may have brought Al Qaeda and the Taliban closer politically and ideologically. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan after the 2001 attacks when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden.”
4. George Packer, New Yorker: Two Minds on Syria
“A- He’s a bloody dictator fighting for survival. He’s going to do whatever he has to do.
B- Not if we really hurt him. Not if we pound his communications centers, his air-force bases, key government installations. He’ll be more likely to survive if he doesn’t use chemical weapons.
A- Killing civilians while we’re at it.
B- These would be very specific targets.
A- The wrong people always get killed.”
5. Matt K. Lewis, Daily Caller: Beating the drums: The run-up to war is exciting!
“I’ve felt this feeling before. So have you. I was in school during the Desert Storm era, and the media anticipation made it feel sort of like the way it feels when weather forecasters predict a foot of snow will hit. There was an energy in the air. Nobody thought anything bad would happen to us, of course. And it didn’t. But it was something to talk about (and we got to watch some cool CNN coverage.)
Here’s the thing: Even when military action is the right thing to do, we should treat is as a solemn thing. But we seem to treat it more like the anticipation of an upcoming Super Bowl.”
6. Nick Gillespie, Reason: Is Bombing Syria Necessary to Save “the Future of Civilization”? Or, It’s Always 1938 Somewhere
“It’s always the same time: Right after Mussolini invaded Abyssinia and right before the Munich pact was signed,” Gillepsie writes. “If the best case for a U.S. war with Syria is that “the future of civilization” is at stake, it’s clear that pro-war forces have no argument other than overheated rhetoric. The simple fact is that Syria’s civil war (and that’s what we’re facing here) is not the test case for civilization, Western or otherwise.”