WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW – SOME READERS MAY FIND THESE DEEPLY DISTURBING
SHOULD THE WEST INTERVENE IN SYRIA? – I want to start by pointing out that I am no expert on the politics of Syria but like many I would like to know if we, as a humanitarian society, should intervene in Syria in order to bring about peace.
You would have to be an extremely cold and detached person not to feel for all people that have so far lost their lives and certainly the atrocities directed at innocent children are beyond any form of justification.
I doubt anyone in the Western hemisphere has missed the horrific pictures of children lying dead after the recent chemical attack; which is being blamed on by both the Syrian Government and the Rebels.
The question on many people’s minds is ‘would an invasion into Syria bring about peace’?
Western Governments already have their hands full with the ongoing conflicts in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The ideology of invading and over-throwing Saddam Hussein was to free the people from oppression and bring about peace in the region; how successful has this been?
The west is with Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against forces that are clandestine by their very nature and purpose; it’s why it’s referred to as terrorism, for we fear what we cannot see, what we do not understand and not knowing where the next attack is coming from. Look closely at the Boston Marathon Bombing or the murder of Lee Rigby and you will clearly see that we are not safe from terrorist attack.
The issues within the Arab Springs are fueled by a religious ideology that most westerner’s will never fully comprehend; we cherish the sanctity of life while Muslims appear to laud the ideology that martyrdom is the only true way to reach God’s land of paradise.
It has been reported today that the U.S is now poised to engage in long-range missile attacks on Syrian Government targets.
The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, warned last night that the latest chemical weapons attack in Syria could not be ignored and that Russia’s claims that the attack came from the Rebels is simply not credible.
Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, is being called upon to allow U.N weapons inspectors free access to the area so that they might determine what chemicals were used in the latest atrocity that killed over 1,700 people, many of who were innocent children whilst they slept in their beds.
The U.S President, Barrack Obama recently said that the U.S would intervene if Bashar al-Assad crossed the line by using chemical weapons against its own people; as yet there is no concrete evidence that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for unleashing the chemical weapons but on the opposing side of the argument the British and the U.S feel it is most unlikely that the Rebel forces would have access to such weapons and therefore the spotlight is firmly on the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
What will the outcome be if the west does indeed move into Syria and remove Bashar al-Assad from power? Will he swing from a rope like Saddam Hussien and if so what message would that send to the Arab Springs; especially when there is now clear evidence that both Tony Blair and George W. Bush were directly responsible for implementing an illegal war that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children; not forgetting all the coalition troops that have lost their lives in the conflict?
Are we as so-called humanitarians above and beyond reproach?
If the west does decided to intervene what will be achieved? Some speculate that providing arms to the Syrian Rebels will do nothing more than help arm Al Qaeda terrorists. Do we really want to be responsible for arming such a terrorist organization?
Some analysts are suggesting that western governments provide a ‘safe corridor’ so that refugees can escape the area without harm. This would involved a military presence and having to fly fighter jets over the area; which in turn would leave them open to possible ant-aircraft missiles from Russian batteries installed in the region.
Another option is to bomb chemical weapons sites; but as with the issues in Iraq where are these to be located?
The final option would be to implement a full scale invasion but with the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan already crippling the U.S and British finances how feasible would this be?; after all Syria is very well armed and then you have the added issues of the many religious factions.
The stark and unrelenting truth is that any western involvement is not going to produce any long-term benefits. The west, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, will be seen as an unwanted intrusion by certain factions and like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan it may never be truly possible to bring about peace due to the constant in-fighting among the religious groups.
We are torn between what we perceive as justice and what is in fact a no-win situation; invade and we are invaders, do nothing and we are seen as to condone the atrocities. As with Iraq and Afghanistan we are not wanted or welcomed and much of the terrorist attacks that are perpetrated against us are because of our presence in these regions.
The question still remains… ‘Should the West intervene in Syria?’