The situation in Syria continues to get grimmer and grimmer as the bloody assault on Homs continues for a 20th straight day. A panel of three UN investigators has accused the Bashar al-Assad regime of crimes against humanity. News reports from Homs, including some by journalists who have died in the process of getting the news out, amply attest to the truth of these charges. Civilian neighborhoods are being shelled without mercy, and the victims have no way to get medical care.
It is difficult to see why the U.S., Britain, France and other nations–which acted last year when Muammar Qaddafi threatened to inflict a similar fate on Benghazi–sit on the sidelines today. The lack of a UN Security Council resolution, blocked by Bashar Assad’s friends in Moscow and Beijing, should hardly prevent the civilized nations of the world from acting as they did in Kosovo. No one suggests sending Western ground troops, but there is much that can still be done, ranging from air strikes to the establishment of safe zones policed by the Turkish army and the provision of arms to the Free Syrian Army, as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have been arguing for.
Even if there is no will for any robust intervention, there are small steps that can be made. For instance, in the New York Times today we read of the difficulty of getting the news out about Assad’s murderous assault on Homs, where reporters are banned, electricity is out and few if any Internet connections are available. The Times reports that a private group called the Activists News Association in Cairo and other non-governmental organizations are “helping Syria’s volunteer journalists get the word out, organizing their video postings, compiling videos of the dead and spreading that information by Twitter and Facebook.” This is important work, and if the U.S. government isn’t helping to provide information technology to Syria’s anti-government activists, it should be. That is a bare and inadequate minimum of what we should be doing.
It isn't difficult to see why sidelines today vs. stentorian rhetoric (and limited action) in the former Qaddafi case, is this just a rhetorical question? Assad has major and still coherent conventional military reserves and has iran as a regional ally and Russia as a big power protector. However, this could just as well argue that America could have sat out Libya's Act I to todays Act II Blackhawk down style tribal militia feudalism with cell phones. Too many Act III's sadly end with the stage strewn with corpses intervention or no. Exeunt omnes.
you took the words right out of my mouth. actually it's even simpler than that: it's all about Obama's overwhelming desire to make nice with people who hate us. and Iran and Russia are pretty high on that list!
During the Iraq war insurgents streamed into Iraq through it’s porous border with Syria. Yet the US did little or nothing while our casualties mounted. If Assad is willing to shell his own people, what does he have in store for Europe and The United States? We know there are terrorist cells in The United States and Europe. They probably have pretty good day jobs too. In case you have not noticed, American Corporations in The US love to send US jobs overseas. Those jobs which can not be transferred go disproportionately to foreigners, but…no one wants to talk about THAT. Ironic they would prefer to hire a terrorist rather than an American for a job in The United States. Does anyone think those good jobs which are gone are ever coming back. Not bloody likely.
Nevertheless an intervention is becoming more likely in Syria by The US and Europe with the necessary backing of certain other governments. Good chance it will spread to lebanon and Gaza and then Iran…not for sure in that order.
You cannot have it both ways. You are on the side-lines OR you send in the troops. but first ask yourself on whose side you are on. The Alawite side or the Al Kaeda side? The Druze side or the islamic brotherhood side. On the Christian side or the Sunni Jihad side? or maybe there is no good side to be on? Incidentally, when Arabs vowed to wipe Israel off the map in 1948 and sent 5 armies in how may troops did the US commit to prevent genocide? And in 1967? and in 1973 when israel was attacked by surprise? Would that be zero? So why send American or an western troops to help the Ichwan?