There is an important article by Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian today. In essence, his article makes the argument that (i); Syria is not Iraq and (ii); intervention doesn't have to mean sending armies or planes.
Just because the Iraq intervention has always been controversial, it does not mean that there should never be any intervention anywhere. Without intervention in Libya, Gadaffi would still be ruling and many thousands of Libyans would have been massacred. Whilst pro-active military intervention in Syria may be difficult, it doesn't follow that Nato et al, could not supply the opposition movement with logistical support, weaponry, intelligence and humanitarian aid. We should also not hesitate to expel the Syrian Ambassador to the United Kingdom.
The Assad regime is most probably nearing the end of its reign in terms of brutality - to avoid further suffering and genocide - and to help a stable post-Assad Syria, the West has a moral duty to intervene.
This was the Question I asked William Hague, earlier in the week (6 February), during the short Statement on Syria:
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done thus far, but, just as we were right to intervene in Libya and to support with weapons and logistics those opposition movements that faced massacre, can he do more to work with other countries to give logistics, weapons and humanitarian aid to the opposition groups in Syria? Further, when will the stage be reached at which we need to expel the Syrian ambassador from the United Kingdom?
Mr Hague: I hope that I have covered those points. We are not engaged, and are not planning to engage, in arming the opposition forces in Syria, although we will help with advice and some logistics and practical support in order to ensure their ability to operate. It would not be in their interests in any case to be seen as an arm of western Governments, so there is a limit to what we can do in that regard.
On the question of the embassy, we will work with our partners throughout the world on that, but there are advantages in keeping an embassy, as well as in making the strong diplomatic statement of withdrawing an embassy. It improves our understanding of the situation on the ground to have an embassy there.
by Robert Halfon - www.roberthalfon.blogspot.com
