Comparing Syria to Yugoslavia

Putin takes flak at the G-8 summit for his support of Syria, and the rebels, in a story that doesn't sound authentic, purportedly killed 60 government troops in a suicide bombing of a military base near Aleppo.

But what I found noteworthy this morning was an opinion piece, "To Get a Truce, Be Ready to Escalate," by Wesley Clark, former U.S. presidential aspirant and NATO supreme allied military commander for Europe. It is noteworthy because it is an excellent illustration of the weakness and rot in pro-interventionist thinking prevalent in the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

It goes something like this: Inaction is not an option. And though it is likely that a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone would lead to full-scale military engagement and even though it is unclear what Syria would look like after Assad, we should nonetheless escalate the use of force to bring al-Assad to the negotiating table.

Proof of the success of such a strategy? NATO's 1999 bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. We're hearing this argument made frequently these days. Bill Clinton made it last week in his criticism of Obama for not doing more to aid the rebels.

Some points to keep in mind:

• Kosovo is not a viable state. It is an Albanian rump rife with criminality. It is held together by means of United Nations support. Do we want this in the heart of the Middle East? Do we want Afghanistan in the heart of the Middle East? (Take a look at this analysis, provided by Syria expert Aron Lund, of the Islamist nature of the opposition.)

• The NATO campaign against Yugoslavia could have led to war with Russian (Pristina airport incident) and China (bombing of Chinese embassy in Belgrade). Is there any doubt that the spin-offs of a broad Western intervention in Syria would be much worse?

• It is not the Syrian government that is unwilling to negotiate. It is the opposition and the GCC and the West who insist that al-Assad agree to relinquish power as a precondition of any talks. In other words, victory before any bargaining begins. Absurd. The West is engaged in an absurdity.

Here's Clark's wished for outcome:

The formula for diplomacy is clear: a cease-fire agreement; a United Nations presence; departure of foreign fighters; disarmament of Syrian fighters; international supervision of Syria’s military; a peaceful exit for Mr. Assad, his family and key supporters; a transitional government; and plans for a new Syria.

It's absurd. It's delusional. It's a desire for anarchy in the Middle East. It's a clear prescription for disaster. And this passes for interventionist prevailing wisdom?