There seems to be a gap between the “heresies” of academia and the “myths” of the media when it comes to events that involve the interests of great powers.

One of the best and most recent examples of that gap involves military intervention by a third party in a civil war. Many media sources have presented military intervention as a “solution,” even a “humane” solution, for the crisis in Syria.

Several and accurate academic researchers eliminated three basic myths that are used to justify outside military intervention in civil conflicts:

— Military foreign intervention does not reduce the duration of a civil war;

— Military foreign intervention does not lead to a reduction in the number of overall civilian casualties — in fact, it increases it; and

— Foreign military intervention causes opposing groups not supported by the foreign power to commit greater human rights violations.

Despite the refutation of these myths in the academic world, these myths have not faded from public discourse. The main reason for the persistence of such myths is that they are useful, they serve as appealing pretexts to enact hawkish foreign policies.

However, rejecting foreign military interference does not mean taking the side of the Assad regime or exonerating what it has done. Instead, it means that Arab states and their international allies should shoulder the responsibility of working tirelessly toward a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Syria, which involves interests beyond the Syrian borders.

Rashed Al Munajjim, Lewiston