The Seductiveness of Airpower
By Another predictably unhinged anti-airpower screed:
Steven Cook argues that the United States and NATO ought to start seriously discussing intervention in Syria. If not and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is left to massacre his political opponents, he wonders, what message will it send to the international community about the right to protect? Anne-Marie Slaughter reluctantly concurs, suggesting that Western military power could ensure the security of safe harbors and corridors for Syrian civilians.
Notwithstanding many well-meaning arguments to the contrary, the final goal of any potential military intervention in Syria — which will necessarily be conducted primarily with airpower — will be the toppling of the Assad regime. Slaughter, for example, insists that military force should not be used with the express intent of overthrowing the Assad government. Instead, Western aircraft will bomb Syrian airfields, shoot down Syrian aircraft, blow up Syrian tanks, destroy the Syrian air defense network, disable Syrian command and communications installations, and generally deprive the Syrian government of control over whatever parts of its territory the international community deems Assad unfit to govern. We would agree to the illusion, I suppose, that this is not regime change until Assad actually falls, after which we would congratulate ourselves on another successful intervention.