The U.S. suggests a “coalition of the willing” to intervene in Syria:
The United States proposed an international coalition to support Syria’s opposition Sunday after Russia and China blocked a U.N. attempt to end nearly 11 months of bloodshed, raising fears that violence will escalate. Rebel soldiers said force was now the only way to oust President Bashar Assad, while the regime vowed to press its military crackdown.
The threat of both sides turning to greater force after Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution raises the potential for Syria’s turmoil to move into even a more dangerous new phase that could degenerate into outright civil war.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned that chances for “a brutal civil war” would increase as Syrians under attack from their government move to defend themselves, unless international steps provide another way.
Just as it is in Libya, bloodshed is being used to justify even greater bloodshed. I suspect we will see a repeat of “We came, we saw, 30,000 Libyans died.”
It also lends credence to the suspicion by many that the U.S. wants a war with Iran. The path to Iran is through Syria. As I have pointed out before, an intervention in Syria will have a profound and overwhelmingly negative repercussions in the region:
The fall of Assad’s regime could be seen as an attempt by the West to rid Israel of its enemies. As pointed out by Justin Raimondo, Israel does stand to gain plenty from a defanged Syria. A regime change in Syria also weakens Iran as it loses its most closest ally in the Middle East; further provoking an already nervous Iran. Simply put, a regime change in Syria will have greater consequences in the region that any other unrest in the Middle East thus far, but these consequences would be horrifically amplified if the U.S. and NATO embark in a military campaign there.
Simply put, it is going to be bloody and a total chaos.
“War is, as it always was, not a humanitarian but a political undertaking,” according to Philip Gourevitch of The New Yorker. Something to remember, especially by those people who are eagerly advocating a “humanitarian intervention” in Syria.Published in