Bashar Assad: Advocates of intervention prod the world with pictures of dying children, while opponents of intervention smugly issue lists of things that should not be done, but say little about what should be done. Its always easier to warn than to plan. It should be no wonder that the results of this rhetorical war of pointless truisms has not amounted to much more than anger, sanctimony and intellectual paralysis, according to The Star. Although the question of intervention was mired in false choices, it has now been overtaken by events. The next question is how to intervene, and what goals might be attained by military strikes and Syrian dictator Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, and so the Syrian civil war has now become an international crisis. Unfortunately, like all crises played out in the public eye, the Syria debate has settled into the trench warfare of binary and false choices: invade Syria or do nothing. Let Assad win or help Al Qaeda. Add to this the generic, painfully obvious, and not particularly useful caveats about military action routinely issued by ever-cautious retired generals and policy wonks: we cant do everything, there are no good guys. The reality, however, is that there is no longer a choice about military action in Syria. Weapons of mass destruction have been used against civilians, and whatever activists and partisans of either side might wish to believe, no U.S. president of either party or for that matter, no British prime minister or French chief executive would have had any other choice but to act against such ghastly transgressions of the few rules still left in the 21st century conduct of war. Syrias actions constitute a moral obscenity, as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has rightly called it, and Assad has now left the West no alternative.
(www.immigrantscanada.com). As
reported in the news.
Tagged under Bashar Assad, intervention topics.