http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/2012525225217995929.html
The U.N. will at least criticize Assad for slaughtering his own people—this time around 50 people were killed in Homs. Does anyone else think that we should actually do something apart from pushing paper? The Syrian people have continually called upon the Western world for help to stop the bloodshed. Thousands of people are protesting throughout Syria for the end of Assad's rule. Without question, Assad's opposition could do more to protect human rights, but something has to be done with the Syrian government. The Middle East could use one less brutal dictator oppressing his people.
What would you suggest? The little I know about it makes me dizzy. Something needs to be done but what would make it better rather than worse?
ReplyDeleteI know what you mean. This is a complex situation and military involvement is always difficult. For starters, many Western nations have kicked out the Syrian ambassadors, citing this incident as the reason for their dismissal. I think Assad has already shown, however, that diplomatic restraints will not be enough. In my opinion, he is calling the bluff of the international community. He has no problem murdering his own people to stay in power and blaming it on "terrorists." How to solve this is a delicate issue. I'm hesitant to support giving arms to the Free Syrian Army because I don't know how much we should trust them. Not to mention, it's always dangerous to fill a war-torn country with more effective weapons, it normally leads to more killing. Not to mention, we never know what the future will hold. We armed the Taliban to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan and that eventually backfired. I think the most obvious, though unpleasant, solution would be military intervention. France, among others, has recently indicated that they would be willing to intervene militarily so long as the international community was in agreement. This essentially means that in order for most Western powers to intervene the UN would need a mandate to do so. The problem is that Russia refuses anything like that, and they are a major part of the UN security council. For whatever reason, Russia feels fine to sit on this and watch the people die. So, we are met with two possibilities: (1) wait for a UN measure which could take quite a long time, or (2) go in by ourselves and with anyone else who will support us. The problem with (1) is that thousands of people could die before anything happens. The problem with (2) is that we would be fighting a very complex battle, trying to rebuild a state, by ourselves. Not to mention, it would upset a lot of people in the world. Regardless, our priority should be to save lives and oust murderers. I'm open to the idea of U.S. intervention without international support. All in all, I'm still not totally sure.
ReplyDelete