So, I’ve gotten a bit impatient with reading some of what passes for “debate” on the Syria matter. I’m still extremely ambivalent on the issue and I’ll probably spell that out in a long-form post later today or early tomorrow. For the moment, however, I do think that it’s worth raising the level of discourse with some actual theory and political science over the assertions of outraged non-interventionists and sputtering chickenhawks.
Consider this Nob’s “best of the best” post:
First from the Monkey Cage are a series of posts from Erica Chenoworth examining the efficacy of interventions.
- Do Interventions Reduce Civilian Casualties?
- How much does history predict success for a Syrian intervention?
- When do interventions actually work?
- Do military interventions hasten the end of civil wars?
Next from Duck of Minerva:
- Jon Western’s argument that not all interventions are the same.
- Charli Carpenter’s examination of the legal basis for intervention.
Over at the Usual Suspects of the debates (Foreign Policy, The National Interest and Foreign Affairs) we have:
- Peter Feaver examining the rationales behind the use of chemical weapons by Assad.
- The Cable gives us an exclusive on what’s being used as the evidence for the regime’s use of chemical weapons.
- Nikolas Gvosdev gives us a rundown of Russian response possibilities.
- Jonathan Mercer on the folly of going to war over “credibility”.
And finally miscellaneous links:
- Justice in Conflict examines whether justice is in fact even possible in Syria.
- Matthew Waxman on the constitutional authority to threaten war.
- Rick Pildes on the balance between international law and political judgment.
- Jack Goldsmith, Ashley Deeks, and Wells Bennett go around on the precedents that Kosovo set and how the USG might justify a Syrian intervention.
If you have any additional links you’d like added, please put them down here.