Inelegant solutions
I don’t really want to belabor this, because David and I have very different conceptions of America’s duty to keep her people safe. But we have a situation where the following facts are, essentially, not in dispute:
- Terrorist/insurgent groups are operating out of Syria, striking Americans and Iraqi citizens while also importing weapons into Iraq;
- These groups are operating with impunity in Syria (be it because Syria is happy to encourage the killing of Americans and Iraqis or because they don’t have control over the region, the result is the same);
- The United States military has launched an attack on Syrian territory with the intention of disrupting those bases and cease the killing of American soldiers and the Iraqis they are protecting.
Now, I don’t think that adding to our troubles in the region is especially “simple” or “elegant.” Tactically, cross-border operations are prone to all sorts of screw ups that could create a serious international incident. It is, generally speaking, a good idea to be actively engaged militarily in as few nations as possible. These strikes should be undertaken only as a last resort.
But we have an obligation to protect our people, and terrorists cannot be allowed to operate with impunity–wherever they are–when their intention is to kill American citizens. If terrorists are doing that, then they should be killed. Period. And I’m not particularly worried about the complaints/recourse of a nation that allows the scum of the Earth to operate within its borders.