“The moral imperative in Syria,” in Christian Science Monitor.
The Syrian army appears to be “going from one rebellious city to another… crushing opposition with brutal violence.” Why isn’t the world doing something in Syria, like it did in Libya?
It’s not easy. There are several outside forces with a vested interest in what happens in Syria, not least of which are Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The latter in particular is supporting the current regime in its effort to remain in power. Iran’s influence stretches from its own borders west through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. An external effort on behalf of regime change could very well trigger an escalation which could lead to open regional warfare.
Yet without outside intervention, CSM thinks the risk of genocide is high. I think they are probably right. It wouldn’t be the first time tens of thousands of Syrians were killed to keep the family in power. But the failure in Libya and the tension with Iran, which owns the largest military in the region and seems willing, given provocation, to use it, makes the rest of the world seem loathe or helpless to act. There have been condemnations and talk of asset freezing, but in my view, the only way to stop the violence is direct military intervention. And that doesn’t seem likely.
I fear a lot more blood will water the ground.
{ 0 comments… add one now }