Publication

This paper talks about the debate over the level of US engagement in the Syrian civil war and argues that many of the most common arguments against US involvement are not good enough. The author suggests that those arguing against assistance to the opposition in Syria have used Afghanistan and other historical analogies to support their positions, but that their arguments frequently employ faulty history and faulty reasoning. He thinks that there are options for coherent, effective US action in Syria's crisis and that policymakers must put them forward for public debate.