What justification is needed? Everytime the West decides on military action, we are told about the need to protect innocent civilians, to promote democracy and human rights. It was the same in Iraq and Libya and now in Syria. Unfortunatly the West is very selective about which countries to apply these rules to. There is no question that civilians are being slaughtered in Syria and that Assad is doings things we should not and never condone but the big questions are whether intervention is the way to go and should overt attempts be made to militarily support those who oppose Assad. What if arming the rebels results in greater violence but does not result in the ouster of Assad - what next? Yes the West is very concerned about the deaths of civilians but calls to ouster Assad are also aimed at weakening Iran. A major question still remain unanswered - what will a post Assad Syria look like like? And if the West doesn't intervene and Assad remains in power, will the violence spread into north Lebanon?
The situation in Iraq IMO provides us a lot of lessons and warnings as to how countries should act with regards to Syria and that things can sometimes get a hell of a lot worse before they get better, to the great cost to the locals. What was so ironic with Iraq is that the U.S. invaded to topple Saddam and to install a 'friendly' government. What it probably never reckoned with is how the post Saddam Iraqi government would form close ties with 2 members of the so-called 'Axis of Evil' - Iran and Syria - which is only natural as it serves Iraqi interests. Not to mention the situation in Egypt where for years, the West turned a blind eye to Mubarak's lack of democracy and human rights in return for him clamping down on Islamic 'extremists' like the Muslim Brotherhood - and now we have a Egyptian leader from the Muslim Brotherhood who was democraticly elected!!!!
Last edited: