Why it makes sense for Obama to authorize airstrikes in Iraq — but not Syria

The U.S. is gearing up for a military intervention in Iraq. That does not mean it should do the same in Syria.

Iraq
(Image credit: (REUTERS/Ari Jalal))

Whenever President Obama makes a major foreign policy move, as he did last night announcing limited airstrikes in Iraq, it's inevitable that someone will ask, "Well, what about [X country that is also mired in conflict]?" The go-to example is Syria, where innocent civilians are being killed in the thousands in a full-blown civil war that the Obama administration has long kept at arm's length.

But the Iraq mission is special. As Obama made clear, this authorization of force has modest goals: 1) to protect U.S. personnel in the Kurdish city of Erbil and 2) to facilitate a humanitarian mission for 40,000 Yazidi Iraqis who are trapped without food or water and face imminent slaughter at the hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. There is no equivalent situation in Syria with such clear, executable goals.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up
Ryu Spaeth

Ryu Spaeth is deputy editor at TheWeek.com. Follow him on Twitter.