As usual, the best assessments of whether the US or European powers should intervene in Syria somehow come from the British media, not American. Here is Con Coughlin in The Telegraph, "Syria’s rebels are not yet worthy of our trust."
But for all the protestations we heard from Libyan exiles that Gaddafi’s regime would be swapped for Western-style democracy and the rule of law, “liberated” Libya now finds itself in thrall to rival gangs of heavily armed militias, some of whom subscribe to an Islamist, and positively anti-Western, agenda. The recent failed assassination attempt against Dominic Asquith, Britain’s ambassador to the country, tells you all you need to know about the attitude of liberated Libyans towards Britain, irrespective of the heroics performed by the RAF and the rest of the British military in securing Gaddafi’s downfall. It’s what is known in foreign policy circles as an own goal.I would add, though, that there would be no reason at all to put stock in any such assurances even if they are given.
After this debacle, it clearly makes sense for the Government and its allies to ensure that, before we go too far down the road towards establishing no-fly zones and safe havens in Syria, we exact some degree of reassurance from those seeking the overthrow of Assad: that any administration they establish in its place will constitute a tangible improvement, and not the opposite.
As I said here, if the rebels win, expect a bloodbath of non-Sunnis, especially the Alawites and Christians. But I have already written we should stay out of Syria.
Posts
