Syria: Regime Change

Libya Dept: Indeed there are, chiefly the fact there is no peace to keep in Syria. And there is little evidence the international community has the influence over Assad to stop what looks like a civil war in Syria without taking out his regime militarily, much as NATO created the conditions for the Libyan resistance to topple the Gadhafi regime last year, according to The Star. An international military force on the ground in Syria is highly unlikely to be a peacekeeping operation by any honest definition of that concept even though the term is already being bandied about internationally. What we are really talking about is regime change, which was NATO s and the UN s unstated goal in Libya, but one they could fudge because they were dealing with the Libyan military from 30,000 feet, not ground level and the international community has been digesting the Arab League s proposal for a peacekeeping force to stop the Assad regime from massacring Syrian citizens. The British are showing openness to the notion. And the U.S. state department has expressed qualified support for the idea, with the caveat: There are a number of challenges with regard to this proposal. But there is one big difference between Libya last year and Syria in 2012. In Libya, the international military intervention was limited to air power and special forces. That is not what the Arab League and others now envision in Syria. They are talking boots on the ground, a qualitatively and quantitatively different proposition. (www.immigrantscanada.com). As reported in the news.