Going for Broke?

I don't understand why people are opposed to wrecking the Assad regime. Arguments that we shouldn't topple him unless we have a plan to cope with the consequences and resulting casualties set a standard for intervention that nobody can meet. Stop fretting so much and work the problems in a manner worthy of a great power.

The Assad dynasty has earned our hostility many times over, with their support for al Qaeda in Iraq only the most recent effort to wage war on us. Our support for rebels in Syria is pretty limited, it seems, but the rebels will topple Assad's government. That is called "victory."

Is it going to be perfect? Less than messy and deadly? Nope. Neither was defeating Nazi Germany.

Neither was Libya attacked according to a deep NATO plan that accounted for the post-regime era, for that matter, unless the plan included watching Tuareg mercenaries return to Mali, trigger a coup in the south, result in the victory of rebels in the north who then lost out to foreign jihadis who took control of the region and set up a haven for jihadis, and aided jihadis who organized in eastern Libya after Khadaffi fell who took part in the Benghazi attacks on September 11, 2012.

Was that in the plan and I'm just not patient enough to see the planned international effort a year from now rout the jihadis with a few thousand polyglot, hastily trained troops in the lead?

Obviously, we don't have a plan that accounts for every path the post-revolution could take in Syria. People will die sorting it out. But that must not freeze us into inaction. The logical consequence is either to insist we lead an invasion to fight for stability--which did work in Iraq, regardless of your view on the war.

Or, if that isn't to your liking, that insistence on a perfect plan before going in leads to supporting the dictator's efforts to win quickly. Really. If we are so worried that overthrowing the dictator will lead to heavy civilian casualties, doesn't that mean we must deny the Syrian rebels the right to overthrow their ruler? Because surely that will be more bloody than continued stability under the heel of the regime?

And if a revolt starts, shouldn't we support the regime in quickly suppressing the revolt no matter how harshly it is done? Forty thousand Syrians have died in the revolt so far. Would it not have made sense from a casualty perspective to support Assad in leveling a rebellious city and inflicting 10,000 dead to squash the revolt quickly?

The truth is, we can only do the best we can. And other people will act in their interests regardless of what we want. Our claims that we didn't want to further "militarize" the rebellion were stupid at the time and are obviously so now with the body count still climbing.

Defeating Assad's regime will be a victory. It will unleash more problems. Maybe more than we like. Maybe even more than we can handle.

But we will have let dictators who kill our people know that however patient we must be, we will get our revenge one day.

We call all these actions and reactions "history" when we look back on it. It isn't perfect and it isn't possible to insist that we must only act if we can manipulate diverse actors--in a war, no less--to a happy ending with little cost.

It isn't even possible to stop history by refusing to make a decision. In the end, that is making a decision, too, with all the consequences that flow from making a decision to act. For example, it is quite possible that refusing to arm the rebels has allowed the fight to drag on with the result that jihadis are gaining clout in the revolution.

We're a great power. Act like it and don't have a panic attack every time something happens abroad. Work the problems. Do our best. And go on to the next problem. Didn't that "end of history" stuff get debunked already?