It’s time for West to intervene in Syria
Wednesday’s brazen rebel bombing attack in Damascus, the influx of small arms and funding to anti-regime forces, and a string of high-level defections may have fundamentally altered the facts on the ground in Syria. But this may just be wishful thinking.
What we know for sure is that the humanitarian crisis in Syria looks and feels a lot like the bloody ethnic strife of the Balkans in the early 1990s. Think back to the wanton slaughter of Bosnian Muslims and Croats, the mass rapes and grim concentration-like camps, and the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons.
Do we really want to go back to this period when 200,000-250,000 people perished and hundreds of thousands were internally displaced? At that time, it took years of mass murder and sectarian mayhem before the West intervened with a muscular bombing campaign. That was the only language then-leader Slobodan Milosevic and his vicious Serb forces understood.
Fast-forward to what is happening in Syria today. It’s painfully obvious that UN-Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan’s peace plan is in tatters — as are other international diplomatic efforts.
More than 16,000 Syrians have already perished; there have been reports of systematic rape and summary executions of children. It certainly looks like Syria is engulfed in a full-fledged civil war and, worse still, a ruthless “ethnic cleansing” campaign, with the minority Alawites and their surrogates going house-to-house to exterminate the Sunni majority.
How many massacres need to happen before we stand up and say enough is enough?
What should we say to the father and husband who just lost his wife and daughter in another massacre perpetrated by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? He no doubt wants to know why we allow this murderous rampage to go on.
We could say, as many have already, that Syria is not Libya and that Assad has far superior military forces and air defences than Gadhafi. We could also say that China and Russia are blocking UN endorsement; that the Arab League is uncertain; and that other regional countries like Lebanon, Turkey and Iran could easily be brought into any outside military invasion scenario. These are all legitimate considerations.
Others will point to fissures within the Syrian opposition (and the possible inclusion of al-Qaida disciples), the potential risk to civilians of any foreign military assault, and the prospect of no feasible exit strategy once the West does invade.
There is also the ever-present political dynamic — that is, the fear of Western governments of getting bogged down in Syria, putting our soldiers in harm’s way. Clearly, the thought of Afghanistan has given war-weary people in North America and Europe good reason to pause. To be sure, U.S. President Barack Obama — with an election looming — has no stomach for such an operation.
But are these reasons sufficient to justify doing precious little? If we were in the shoes of the Syrian opposition movement, would we accept these rationalizations?
We need to remember that Assad, like Milosevic, is counting on us sitting on our hands and watching safely from the sidelines. In fact, he’s banking on our lack of political will and determination.
We’ve seen this disturbing picture of atrocity in Bosnia before, and we’re going to see it again, I’m afraid. Unless, of course, we decide to do something drastic now to stop it. And the only purposeful way of stopping further bloodshed in Syria is for the West or NATO (with the assistance of some Arab states) to invade militarily with overwhelming force.
The bombs will need to rain down on various Syrian cities and villages; military installations and general infrastructure will have to be destroyed; and Syrian ground troops will need to be hit hard. We can’t avoid putting “boots on the ground” to halt further slaughter. There is just no other way to stop the carnage.
Yes, it will be very messy, bloody and politically risky. Men and women of our armed forces will certainly die — but it will be in the defence of humanity. Otherwise, we will continue to watch the body count climb, wait in vain for the Russians, and hope against hope that the brutal killing will stop.
But the devastated Syrian father is still waiting for a satisfactory answer to his cry for help. And, to be honest, I’m not sure that we have one.
Peter McKenna is professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island in Charlottetown.
i dont (blank) think so
Submitted by rob123 on July 20, 2012 - 7:15am.
a member of the Intelligentsia says we should intervene.
the bombs will rain down" he says. members of the military will die. i wonder if the good "professor" will be out in front of the troops.
perhaps "professor" the west is just a little tired of getting involved in wars where we are cursed by both sides. wars where our soldiers are sent home in frigging pieces again and again all the while being constrained by the UN.
if we should, there should be no limit to our response. "let loose the legion" caesar might have said. sent the world's legions over there are wipe the bad guys off the face of the earth, literally.
suspend the geneva conventions and wipe the bad guys off the face of the earth, literally. kill every last one of them, hunt them down like dogs.
either that or stay home.
because of there is one thing our military doesnt need, its another "professor" saying that the military needs to be there but " dont hurt them" after they are there and then having to contend with being picked off.
On this one I pretty well have to agree with you Rob.
Submitted by hav2b on July 20, 2012 - 8:17am.
We should stay out of it.
As soon as any soldier, from outside the country, accidentally kills a Syrian civilian, there would be hell to pay. All rules of war would have to rescinded and peace brought to the Syrians in a most brutal manner.
If it's going to come down to cases of "Oh, G.I. Joe just blew up a family. Court martial him.", then we're better off staying out of it.
And anyway, at the rate they're killing each other now, how long can it go on?
Has this professor had his
Submitted by CoyoteII on July 20, 2012 - 8:04am.
Has this professor had his nose in books for the last 20 years and missed the history and outcomes of the west's interventions in the middle east. Iraq ... anti-west gov't, Afganistan ... anti-west gov't, Egypt ... anti-west gov't, Libia ... anti-west gov't, and it will be the same thing in Syria. An anti-west radical muslim gov't that has no interest in acting like a civilized nation with an ungrateful population.
If we have learned one lesson over the last 20 years, it should be that these people are not worth spilling our blood over or spending our treasure on!
Um, no.
Submitted by shawnino on July 20, 2012 - 8:10am.
Perhaps we should offer food aid to help countries neighbouring Syria to deal with an unfortunate influx of refugees. Beyond that, we must not get involved. The West has wasted far too much blood and treasure trying to get Muslims to buy into our way of life. They're not interested.
Syria is turning into a proxy war for all the heavy hitters in the Muslim world. Iran on one side, Turkey and the Saudis more or less on the other when they're not infighting. If they're going to insist on going at it, let them go at it. Maybe they'll be sufficiently busy with one another that they'll forget awhile about flying planes into our buildings, letting off bombs in subways, and blowing up busloads of teenage tourists.
If it really is in our national interest to go into Syria, let the various factions soften each other up for a few years first. And then a few years more.
You're Not Serious...
Submitted by Common Sense on July 20, 2012 - 8:25am.
Why put our troops in another protracted, no-win situation - been there, done that, and our troops were shafted by both those they went to help, and our very own PC liberal media party - reality bites.
Rubbish
Submitted by Rock on July 20, 2012 - 8:48am.
Absolute rubbish. You think our men and women should be on the ground? Lead the way, bud. Academics playing the war trumpet make me sick.
Little understanding
Submitted by honker on July 20, 2012 - 8:44am.
The good professor has written himself an article that shows he has little understanding of the real world. Let Syria settle this themselves. If the west intervenes militarily then it becomes the Syrian enemy that all factions can focus on. No one wants foreign boots and administration in their country, no matter how nobel the original reason might have been. The Syrian "crisis" is something that the Syrians must go through themselves and it has been a long time coming. Eventually it will be resolved internally and yes, until then death and distruction will continue. An intervention by the "west" will only serve to continue the crisis longer, kill more people, and make a bitter enemy.
"In the Defence of Humanity"
Submitted by dennis.cato on July 20, 2012 - 9:00am.
"Yes, it will be very messy, bloody and politically risky. Men and women of our armed forces will certainly die - but it will be in the defence of humanity."
Bravo Peter! Ignore the catcalls of the anti-intellectual commenters whose guiding principle is always a self-regarding prudence, whose motto is always "I'm looking out for number one!" and whose vision always falls short of larger-scale concepts like "Humanity." Peter, just ignore them.
This is a tough call
Submitted by Alan on July 20, 2012 - 11:29am.
Humanity is calling out, but it isn't clear that a Western invasion will be of use in the long run. Among many other possible (probable?)negative outcomes, there's a fair chance things will escalate and make matters catastrophic if we invade Syria, as the Professor points out. If we think regime change must come, maybe we need to target Assad himself. Would a drone assassination of a single leader or a small group be less moral than killing thousands of followers under the rules of war? Would that be the way to take to lessen bloodshed? I tend to lean that way, but I can't say for sure. We don't get all the facts here- that you can count on. What I can say, though, is that it's easier to call for an invasion from a position of safety than to be on the ground facing the bullets- but that's been the way of war for a long, long time. If political leaders, warmongering industrialists and bellicose intellectuals actually had to be in the vanguard, we could count on there being a whole lot less military conflict in this world.
actually the world would
Submitted by rob123 on July 20, 2012 - 11:44am.
actually the world would probably be a lot better off if your type was ignored.
Invasion no defence of humanity
Submitted by honker on July 20, 2012 - 1:46pm.
Intervening in Syria by bombing and invasion is not a defence of humanity, Mr Cato. This is a problem the Syrians have to settle between themselves, not some military decree imposed upon them by a foreign invading force that knows little to nothing of the cultures involved. Yes bloody it will be, no matter what path is taken, but an internal resolution is far more likely to work than something imposed upon them by "intellectuals" on the gravey train of some UN mission.
Armchair Generals
Submitted by BSacamano on July 20, 2012 - 11:45am.
Dennis, no one who joins a country's Armed Forces is asked to swear an oath of loyalty to 'humanity.' That sounds far more like something you'd hear at the UN, an NGO, or around the academic conference table.
To be fair, it is something you might hear at the European Union. Unfortunately, our enlightened NATO allies have slashed their respective militaries to such a degree that they can't intervene anywhere. Oddly enough, those decisions are usually lauded by the chattering classes, as it allows ever greater spending on domestic social programs.
It's very easy to demand action when we all know that it will mostly be someone else (the United States) that answers the call. But now they're broke too. So who's left? Are you and Peter McKenna planning to join an international brigade?
You're smarter than that Peter...
Submitted by henry gondorf on July 20, 2012 - 12:20pm.
For a minute I thought we had lost Peter McKenna to the legion of syncophants that have dominated American media and have elbowed their way into Canada. For a minute I thought he was supporting a carpet bombing of Syria , you know , destroy the country in order to save it. His call for Western intervention is somewhat late.... interventions have been taking place in the 17 month old conflict since its inception, and we have selected our side, one that is every bit as irrational and brutal as Assad.
Truth be known , this is not about Syria. It is an extension of American foreign policy since the late 1980's. It was brought about by audaciousness after a Cold War triumph, the belief of moral superiority and unbridled ignorance that tells us we can destroy and rebuild nations at will, and that God is on our side while we do it.
“But it will be in the defence of humanity.” No it won’t. The de facto role of the United States military is to keep the world safe for the US 1% economy and open to their cultural/labor/trade assault. To those ends, there will be no termination to the amount of killing. This doesn’t stop at the Syrian border. The West will accept any cruel leader who can be bought to accept Israeli expansion, maintains the Saudis and Qatari oil kingdoms , sides against Iran , and supports Chetchen mischief to destabilize Russia. The idiotic idea that Canadian boots on the ground would somehow create a "human" environment is ludicrous... here's a suggestion to the minority supporters , the Arab leagues House of Saud and Qatar; if you're so enamored by the prospect of "democracy and freedom" in Syria, why don't you utilize all your American firepower and repeat what you did to the Shias in Bahrain - and execute regime change...
Syria is a Sunday school picnic. The Alawites are a tribal lot with very shallow religious affiliations. This changes beyond the Syrian border and has the potential to ignite an assault on humanity the likes we have not witnessed in my lifetime. Go ahead ..tackle the Shias for the Sunnis Kingdoms???? Then you'll see blood..and it will be ours, cause as sure as hell the Saudi's and Qatari's won't do it.
Countries have a right to self determination
Submitted by Here on July 20, 2012 - 12:35pm.
I am all for rounding up 10% of the university faculty across the country and throwing them into Syria to settle the issue. 25% if they think they need more.
Countries have a right to self-determination. Interceding is choosing one side over the other, ganging up on who you decide you want to lose. People resent that.
Using the good professor's logic the "West" will never be able to leave Afghanistan or any other country where genocide and murder is condoned by the state or religious groups.
Likewise the time will come when the order of things has changed. Do you really want Iranian jets bombing your lobster pound because you disagree with the latest fatwa issued by the Summerside Iman?