Hacker News Reader

Comment by lefstathiou | Hacker News Reader

What I find interesting about the Syrian issue is that it is becoming increasingly clear that diplomacy, the UN, media exposure etc is failing. Despite this "humanitarian crisis" (which I fully agree is reaching crisis levels), my impression is that almost all the media outlets and pundits are ignoring the obvious solution to this problem... unilateral US military intervention (and before we go there... keep in mind that if that doesnt solve the problem, nothing can).

So the question I have for the parent is as follows: how far do things have to deteriorate before military intervention is the only viable and recommended solution?

It is 100% within the means of the United States to end this situation.

View on HN

What would such an intervention involve? Shoot the bad guys? Which are the bad guys and how do soldiers identify them?

If by the bad guys you mean only ISIS (and not Assad's or the rebel forces), that's what the people currently fighting there are doing. Why would it be harder for US soldiers?

If you think bad guys are sitting in glaring colourful robes for the US military to come and shoot them, you are way off the mark. Political crisis like this are difficult to contain by external players because you never know the good guys from bad.

Maybe US (and other powerful nations) can stealthily fund the locals and arm them to face the radicals, so that the change comes from within rather than outside. Again the problem lies in identifying the innocent locals from the radicals.

At this stage, I'm not even sure if there is a solution for syrian crisis.

"Maybe US (and other powerful nations) can stealthily fund the locals and arm them to face the radicals"

That sort of activity usually ends with local radicals having externally find arms. Also, it hardly counts as change from inside when you armed one fraction of the conflict giving it advantage.

Innocent locals tend to be the ones who don't want guns, sadly. Or are not experienced with them.

i have absolutely no idea how anyone could think major US intervention would improve the situation after iraq, afghanistan, libya, etc. it creates huge power vacuums and decades of conflict in its wake.

The issue is that unilateral US military intervention hasn't solved similar situations in the past.

> What I find interesting about the Syrian issue is that it is becoming increasingly clear that diplomacy, the UN, media exposure etc is failing.

Sadly, those institutions aren't "failing" - its just that those tools are working for people that want to stay in power.

This is a civil war funded by Saudi Arabia and Iran on opposite sides. Stepping in the middle won't solve the issue.

edit: I'm not advocating doing nothing. But just that thinking getting boots on the ground will easily solve this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com