Not So Fast on Syrian Intervention
We might cause more problems than we fix: Henry Kissinger
By John Johnson, Newser Staff
Posted Jun 2, 2012 8:43 AM CDT
This citizen journalism image provided by Shaam News Network shows a Syrian rebel shouting slogans after the bodies of factory workers were found in Homs.   (AP Photo/Shaam News Network, SNN)

(Newser) – Henry Kissinger thinks the US and the world should slow down any movement toward military intervention in Syria. In a Washington Post essay, he raises a series of questions about this type of "humanitarian intervention," a doctrine he says has emerged in the wake of the Arab Spring movement. "Does America consider itself obliged to support every popular uprising against any non-democratic government, including those heretofore considered important in sustaining the international system?" he asks, using Saudi Arabia as a potential example.

Any military intervention, whether for humanitarian or more traditional "strategic" reasons, needs two things: a consensus on what government replaces the one being deposed and an "explicit and achievable" political objective. "I doubt that the Syrian issue meets these tests," writes Kissinger. "In the absence of a clearly articulated strategic concept, a world order that erodes borders and merges international and civil wars can never catch its breath." Read his full essay here.

More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Not So Fast on Syrian Intervention is...
8%
3%
10%
3%
73%
2%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 15 comments
GenericLeftist
Jun 2, 2012 1:03 PM CDT
If there is one person more evil, more sinister than Bush or Obama it is Kissinger.
anonymous191919
Jun 2, 2012 11:23 AM CDT
This is ridiculous. I actually agree with his statements but why is it that all of a sudden the US is supposed to be rational and take it's time before intervening in international affairs? Where was all this talk before the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? Was the mission for the War on Terror "explicit and achievable"? Not really, especially considering that terrorism is a tactic. You can't exactly kill a tactic. The only reason the US government isn't intervening is because the corporate "owners" of this country haven't told them to. And citing Saudi Arabia as an example? If we actually cared about defeating Islamic extremist terrorist organizations and spreading democracy, Saudi Arabia would be the first place to go to. 15 of the 19 terrorist from 9/11 were Saudi. But, instead, the US keeps troops there to support their oppressive regime which enacts Sharia law and gives no rights to women. And it's our support for the Saudi government which fuels the terrorism in the region. So why do we continue to do it? Oil. It's as simple as that. The Saudi Arabian government satisfies our financial interests and the US turns its back on all it's human rights violations. Uncle Sam's loyalty is for sale. And until the people of this country realize that, we'll always be a target. And one final note, how the fuck did Kissinger win a Nobel Peace Prize?
Ultraworld
Jun 2, 2012 11:19 AM CDT
Listen to Henry! He made the same fuck ups in the 60's