Saturday, 7 September 2013

Does bombing Syria solve anything?

Whether you think that Assad ordered the gassing of 1500 (or was it 400?) people, or whether you think the islamist rebels did it using chemicals donated by Saudi Arabia and Qatar (or ferried across the desert border after Hans Blix had set out for Iraq), doesn't matter. John Redwood MP thinks Assad did it, but points out that -

"The west is not directly threatened in the way the UK was by Germany in the 1940s. Syria is not threatening to bomb our cities. We are rightly appalled at the atrocities we see in Syria. It is difficult to see how unleashing some bombs and doing damage to part of Assad’s military machine can make the situation better. There is always the danger of killing people we do not want to kill by mistake. There is the opportunity we would afford Assad to kill the innocent himself and fake the evidence to blame the west."

"I can see that an all out war to evict Assad from power would prevent him in future carrying out atrocities. But without boots on the ground and a US military takeover, who is to say who might then take power in Syria and how they might behave in the chaos that the intense military onslaught needed to oust him and the destruction of the regime had created? More likely the US wishes to do limited damage and to kill just a few people. I cannot see how that makes Syria a better place or how it removes Assad."


But it doesn't really matter who takes over in Syria after Assad has been toppled, just so long as it isn't another Iranian client regime. After all, the mullahs nationalised the oil wells back in in 1978, and that's what counts as far as Exxon-Mobil, Total and BP Obama, Hollande and Cameron are concerned. Always look for the money.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it clean.....