For Whose Credibility? The UN or The US?


rgued that Obama's dithering stance to intervene in Syria after its military crossed the red line he had previously laid out is going to send a wrong message to the perpetrators of the heinous crime that killed over a thousand civilians on Aug 21 on the outskirts of Damascus. He contends that by insisting on conducting a limited military operation in form of a congress approved convention (and that only after the representatives return from a summer recess on Sep 9th) Asad and the future Asads are not going to lose any incentive or have second thought for carrying out perhaps another chemical assault in the near future. Such a reaction from the world's most recognized leader to an international law breaker he believes is weak and will breed destructive outcomes. Those outcomes in his analysis will appear in any of the two following forms:

[2]. We also know that the two most US backed regimes of Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been equipping the Syrian rebels with weapons and needed arms to fight the pro Asad elements. In doing so the region's most radical Islamist groups (namely Wahabis and Salafis) have been nurtured to charge the Syrian land with their own cause of ideology at whose core the regime of Asad and the Western values should both be fought against.

[3].


Leave a comment