Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?

Bashar Al-Assad unleashes violence on protesters, and Joe Lieberman backs U.S. intervention. Hillary Clinton says no way. Who's right?

As Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad and his troops respond to the country's uprisings with force, killing at least 60 protesters in recent weeks, the U.S. debates another possible military in
(Image credit: Corbis)

The Arab uprisings have spread to Syria, and President Bashar Al-Assad has responded with vague promises of greater freedoms, but also with brute force. His troops have killed at least 60 protesters in recent weeks. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Sunday that he would support a no-fly zone over Syria if Assad continues to escalate his violence. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rejected that idea. But should the U.S. consider intervening in Syria, too?

Yes, toppling Assad is in America's interest: The key difference between Syria's "murderous government" and Libya's, says Gordon Chang in Forbes, is that getting rid of Assad is in America's interest. He's a "key ally" of Iran and a "direct threat to Israel," while Libya's Moammar Gadhafi is mostly a thorn in Europe's side. So we should do more than "deplore" his brutal crackdown, "we should do all we can to stop it, if not for the Syrian people than for ourselves."

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