I feel like having a deja vu. I feel like 10 years ago when the war in Iraq started. I’m holding my breath whilst watching news waiting for the global leaders to decide how to react on events in Syria. 10 years ago the UN inspectors said they found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but this time, we may be quite sure, they will eventually find chemical weapons in Syria. And, as soon as it will be confirmed (or before that if the leaders will get impatient), seems like Obama is ready to press the ‘green button’…
If the motivation for intervention is to punish Assad and stop him from using chemical weapons again (this is though still to be proved that the Syrian government was behind the gas attacks), is the military attack the best tactics to do that? Are all the diplomatic means exhausted?
If the planned intervention is justified with the dying people, it does not convince me either. Not, because i support brutality of Assad’s regime, but because overall the West rarely really bother about dying people either because of weapons or poverty or both. Like the Foreign Affairs magazine wrote today: “If the goal were really to protect civilians, the West would have intervened long ago: bombs and guns have killed far more civilians, at least as horribly, as last week’s gas attack.”
Rwanda is a well-known example demonstrating the real motivations of the West and when/where lives matter and when/where not. Interventions are considered and carried out only when the gains outweigh costs. Interventions are not acts of charity. What is and has been the interest of the West in the Middle East and Syria for years – is regime change, that’s why it has been feeding the opposition to provoke that change. Why the regime change is needed? They say, it is democracy, ….which may sound believable, but only to some extent, because, let’s be honest, – it’s only a beautiful facade behind which to hide various other agendas.