“Several international defense experts said that a recent letter from America’s top military leader about the war in Syria revealed a “great power” weary of conflict, cautious on spending and hesitant about overseas engagements. “Very risk averse” is how Magnus Ranstorp, a security expert at the Swedish National Defence College, described the recent letter to Congress from Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in which he laid out the U.S. options on Syria. “This letter reflects the dilemma the United States is facing,” Ranstorp said. “After a decade of military action, the American military knows well that it can be no more than part of a real solution.”………..”

It seems easy for others, for example some Swede, to call Dempsey “very risk averse”. I don’t see his country gung-ho on fighting in Syria. Ditto for other European hawks: they are happy to see American boys and girls go to war while they cheer over their glass of claret or aquavit or stein of beer. They like wars once-removed: the British and French governments were the most eager to have the European Union lift its arms embargo for Syrian rebels, yet now they refuse to supply arms because they have discovered that the rebels who really count are Salafi Jihadis.
FYI: low cost is not a normal justification for going to war, otherwise everybody would be invading Monaco and the Comoros. So why not let Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Sweden fight in Syria?

Cheers
mhg