"We believe the United States should join with its partners and allies...

...in the region and elsewhere to pursue an end to the bloodshed. An international coalition that strengthens the military and political capabilities of thoroughly vetted anti-Assad forces should supply equipment and training. That coalition should also plan for steps that would place even greater military pressure on the Assad regime..."

And so Carl Levin, liberal Democrat, calls for (limited) war with Syria.

I'm as saber-rattling a neocon as anyone, and I think this is nuts.

More after the jump.

No one — not our allies, not the Syrian opposition and not either of us — is advocating U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.

 So they (Levin and Senator King of Maine) just want us to send several tens of billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry to "the Syrian opposition", a front for...al Qaeda.  And provide al Qaeda with air support, and training.

Present in our minds, and in those of many other Americans, are bitter memories of the Iraq war, which we both opposed at the time...The situation is also far different in Syria, where a widespread insurgency has strong popular support. There was no similar broadly popular insurgency calling for our help in Iraq when the United States invaded in 2003.

I'm sure our intervention in Syria would have broad popular support, among the same people who broadly supported 9/11, throwing candy into the street and firing their AK47s into the air in celebration.

Here's a big difference between Syria and Iraq, Carl:  The Iraqi Kurds.  Liberating this pro-American, anti-al-Qaeda group of  6 million friendly, industrious people from under the thumb of a genocidal tyrant was one of the most noble things the US military has done since World War Two.  There were only 6 million of them, though, so theirs didn't amount to popular support.  That's an interesting number of people to discount as trivial and expendable, 6 million.  I seem to remember seeing that number elsewhere in history.

There are a couple of million Kurds in Syria, about 500,000 of whom consider themselves stateless, autonomous from the government that oppresses them.  But none of them are asking us to give aid to al-Qaeda front groups that routinely kidnap and murder Kurds.

So the big difference between Syria and Iraq is this:  In Iraq, there was a substantial pro-American, anti-al-Qaeda group that we could aid with our intervention.  The Kurdish semi-autonomous state in Iraq is now one of the most peaceful and prosperous areas in the middle east.  In Syria, we have on one side the supporters of a murderous despot; and on the other side, our sworn blood enemy, al Qaeda.  If there's anything we can do to help Kurdish refugees escape the carnage, I'd be all for that; but in a fight between Assad and al Qaeda, America's best interest is in maximizing casualties on both sides and protracting the fight for as long as possible.