Why don’t liberal Syria intervention critics talk about Libya?

Published September 7, 2013 4:00am ET



Many Democrats against U.S. intervention in Syria cite the American experience in Iraq as a basis for their opposition to a military strike against the Assad regime. “The Iraq thing is why people have so much trepidation about going into Syria,” James Carville explained on Fox News Wednesday. “I think what really is freaking people out is the incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq.” Many other Democrats have said the same thing in less pithy fashion.

Some Republicans scoff, but the critics have at least a little bit of a point. The Iraq war took disastrous turns that were unforeseen by the Bush administration, resulting in entirely unnecessary calamities for U.S. forces. But on the other hand, there are huge differences between Iraq and Syria. George W. Bush made the case for war for many months before invading Iraq in March 2003. He relied on congressional authorization and United Nations resolutions. And the Iraq war was major operation that resulted in 4,486 American deaths and 32,223 wounded — certainly not a limited, relatively minor military strike envisioned by the Obama administration in Syria.

Already a print subscriber? Click here to login/register your account

Trusted reporting.Unlimited access.

Subscribe for full access to Washington Examiner coverage, expert political analysis, and subscriber-only journalism.

Get Unlimited Access

Already a member? Log in

Cancel anytime.