Wednesday, March 14, 2012

A Syrian Solution?

As I sat and watched “CNN Presents” (72 hours under Fire) the other night which, by the way, was about CNN reporters covering the war in Syria. The story not only covered the dangers these reporters face every day. It covered the intentional atrocities being perpetrated against innocent civilians by Assad’s army as the free world watches in horror and hopes someone else takes action. I applaud their bravery, dedication and risking their lives to tell the real story behind this war. Their story was quite compelling telling of how hundreds if not thousands of innocents are being killed by Syrian Troops.

Meanwhile, the useless United Nations puts another incompetent responsible for negotiating peace in Syria, Kofi Annan. This guy and the UN will negotiate until a race of people is extinct. It’s apparent that the UN is a cowardice shield of apathy utilized as an excuse for the free world not to act.

Let’s face it nobody likes or wants war, especially with what’s going on in the Middle East. However, we could be just stones throw from World War III. We are going to have to face it; it’s a “Sword of Damocles” dangling above our heads and that in spite of it, the free world needs to act to stop atrocities from occurring.

So what is the solution? Well, one reason not to attack Syria by air is that they have an advanced anti-aircraft missile system that they have purchased from Russia. Russia is also supplying them with all types of arms, and Syria has a formidable army. Their defenses are much more comprehensive than Libya’s. An attack would then require more sorties and considerable time and casualties to establish a no-fly zone. A safe zone would also have to be established on the ground which means ground troops would have to be inserted; nobody wants that to happen. Unless there is a multi-national force used to take down Assad’s regime an attack will very likely not occur. We could in all probability take on the Syria with the British and the EU, but the French and Germans would probably demand none of their troops can get hurt or be in combat. Besides, when was the last time any EU country put its troops in danger for a moral cause? I can’t remember any. So it would turn out that the US and England if they agreed to would have to go in alone. The US could do it alone, but we are engaged in two wars already; I think we deserve a break, and the American people are fed up with our country being the only one who does the right thing.

The only solution I see is that the free world has to equip the rebels in Syria with weapons, money and training. An article in the Wall Street Journal on March 14, 2011, by Peter Schuck, “How about Visas for Syrian Defectors," suggests in short, that Visas be offered to what we deem high-ranking officers of Assad’s army if they defect and encourage others to defect to the opposition forces within a specified time. They will then be granted temporary refuge in allied countries until the regime is overthrown. They later must return to Syria to help its rebuilding. Hopefully, if enough high-ranking officers defect, Assad’s army will crumble. I believe that Schuck’s idea in conjunction with equipping and training the rebels to fight for themselves, Assad could fall.

1 comment: