How a limited intervention in Syria could be anything but.
Washington interventionists have a bad habit of blundering blindly into foreign adventures, overly confident in their ability to shape events at the end of a bayonet. Prior to the Iraq war, we were assured the affair would be a "cakewalk" (which it technically was, until the decision to stick around and rebuild the country).
For the looming intervention in Syria, we're being assured that any U.S. action would be "limited" and "surgical." (Secretary Kerry went so far as to claim, in language equal parts Orwellian and risible, that the U.S. would not even be going to "war" with Syria, just, you know, bombing it.) Clearly, that's the Obama administration's preference, but once the missiles start to fly, they're not the only ones calling the shots.
In fact, there are a number of plausible scenarios in which a "limited" action could spiral into something altogether different:
1. The Syrian regime could respond by attacking U.S. allies, either covertly or overtly.
2. The regime could resume chemical weapon strikes, goading the U.S. to act again and more comprehensively.
3. Iran and Hezbollah could retaliate against the U.S. or Israel.
4. The attacks could succeed in breaking the chain of command that governs Syria's chemical weapons, leaving them vulnerable to theft by al-Qaeda-aligned militants or Hezbollah agents.
5. The attacks could lead to the collapse of the Syrian regime and lead, in turn, to a failed state that leads to even more violence spilling across Syria's borders.
Do I think any of these are likely to happen? Probably not. If I had to guess, I'd bet most of the consequences would be more of the long tail variety. But the idea that Washington can ensure that any intervention in Syria will be "limited" is absurd. There are plenty of ways it could be anything but.
(AP Photo)
