It is abundantly clear that president Obama is resolved to strike Syria and as at yesterday John Kerry, Secretary of States was in London to canvass support for the war against Al-assad’s impunity that must not go unpunished. In the words of the Secretary of States,”the risk of not taking any action is greater than the risk of taking action”. Beyond the rhetoric we are yet to see real action. As debate over intervention lingers syrian civil war continues,the death tolls mounts to upwards of 100,000, and the Syrian people plead for assistance. The situation in Syria now has degenerated into a complex sectarian crisis and the regime, which initially feared international clamp down and thus used targeted killings and mass arrest, has now adopted mass killing, shelling of urban areas and the use of chemical weapon. All of these latest development make a strategic case for the intervention in Syria even much stronger than that of Libya.
However, the great powers have been quite hypocritical,contradictory, and reluctant to save the Syrians from a brutal and still regime of Assad, barring the US. Can the US go it alone? I don’t think so,though it has the military power to do so. United states must continue in its quest to mobilize and emphasize the notion that others need to play an important role in helping to craft the plan to solving Syrian crisis.”A made in America” military intervention would end up inflaming the region’s sectarian crisis and would remake the mistakes the Bush administration made in Iraq.
Albeit, the United States should remain engaged and ϐƐ prepared to intervene, but must ensure that it garners the support of key actors in the region like Turkey,a NATO ally which can offer useful assistance and provide safe harbor to Syrians looking to leave the conflict zone. Another key state in the region is Iraq which has a strong economic tie with Syria. The US must engage the full spectrum of tools at it disposal to get the support of countries within the region to play a more pivotal role because of the complex nature of the region.
Intervention in Syria is a case of moral imperative, however anarchic the system may ϐƐ structured there are acceptable norms and rules. The use of chemical weapons and the complex humanitarian situation in Syria is clearly against international norms and conventions. Therefore, Bashar al-assad must ϐƐ made to account for his deeds. The offense on it on own people it clearly a challenge to the world and it matters how the international community responds. Whilst I favor intervention in Syria; though a limited one aimed at degrading Bashar al-assad’s regime capability to use chemical and other weapon of mass destruction on it people,will not fancy a unilateral intervention by the US, would like to see a concerted effort, one that engaged other great powers and powers within the region.