A few weeks ago, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stated his “heroic” armed forces could eliminate the opposition he claims is ridden with “terrorists” — just give him some more time.
During that same interview — given to a pro-government news channel in the country —Assad’s “heroes” continued their bloody crackdown on their own countrymen.
In fact, activists claim 18,000 Syrians — many of whom are women and children — have been killed by the murderous regime wirh many of those deaths beeing door-to-door executions and aerial bombings in countless Syrian cities.
As the mass killings continue, the West, and specifically the United States, continues to idly stand by and simply condemn Assad’s murderous campaign. Unfortunately, President Obama’s pretty rhetoric against the regime is no longer sufficient.
We continue to shamelessly watch the blood of countless Syrians spill, and Obama would have us believe America has no role in ousting Syria’s brutal regime.
That does not stand. Instead, there is a moral and practical case for American intervention in Damascus.
First, Human Rights Watch has reported pro-government forces are now targeting civilians in their efforts to subdue the opposition.
The Syrian leader justifies the murder of Syrian children in particular, as necessary in preventing a so-called “terrorist” takeover of his country. Couple that with evidence of chilling torture prisons and indiscriminate shelling around the country, and you have a recipe for a humanitarian disaster.
Here, the United States has a moral obligation to — at the very least — reduce the blood spilled.
Obama claims he is a proponent of a more interconnected international community. If that is the case, this ought to include a responsibility to protect innocent civilians from being slaughtered on the streets by their own government.
Al-Assad has not simply lost any sense of moral decency, but he has also relinquished any political legitimacy he might have ever garnered to lead Syria.
Senator John McCain, R-Ariz., had it right when he blasted the current administration by asking “how many more Syrians” needed to die before the United States took action.
Next, for a while, it appeared that American military intervention would be a fool’s errand. Countless political officials and diplomats claimed that intervention would be disastrous, insufficient and have no real impact on the ongoing nearly two-year conflict.
That is no longer accurate. It is true that intervention might exacerbate sectarian tensions within Damascus, but that alone is nothing more than an excuse for inaction.
It is Assad himself who has already pitted his Alawite sect against the majority Sunni sect in Syria. Sectarian tensions will arise no matter what. However, a swifter international response to the conflict can mitigate these tensions.
Consequently, there are several possibilities, should military intervention be seriously considered.
First, a military no-fly zone should be enforced — just as the one implemented in Libya.