After the Iraq War hysterics, it seems only fitting for some. And for some who won't defend the Iraq War anymore, they say what is the point? The region has been at war seemingly forever. The people we side with don't even want us there and will show little gratitude. And our troops aren't even eager to fight in this eternal battlefield.
But I've been reading Rick Atkinson's The Guns at Last Light, about the invasion of France and the end of World War II in Europe, and even though the softening gauze of history shows that war as a black-and-white "good" war, defeating Hitler shared problems with defeating Assad:
Few voiced enthusiasm for yet another American intervention in northwestern Europe--"that quarrelsome continent," as on GI called it in a letter home. A recent Army survey in Britain found that more than one-third of all troops doubted at times whether the war was worth fighting, a figure that had doubled since July 1943 but would rise no higher. ...
The British displayed forbearance (of all our troops in Britain prior to D-Day) despite surveys revealing that less than half viewed the Americans favorably. ... George Orwell groused in a newspaper column that "Britain is now Occupied Territory."
So let's do what is in our interests in Syria and the region, and not worry about being loved or whether our troops are eager to fight. It is possible that our troops aren't eager to fight and not be allowed to win, after all.
If we effectively use force, in forty years perhaps no Arab nation may be willing to fight at our side at all--let alone fight amongst themselves.
