Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ONE HAS TO wonder if we Europeans have a particular body count in mind as to when we begin to take substantive notice of slaughter in our back yard and decide to do something about it.
The killing of civilians and individuals determined to win freedom from oppressive regimes in the Arab Spring has taken its most violent turn to date in Syria, and the best the free world can muster is serious condemnation – after protestations of utmost concern and a few blue-hatted peacekeepers to wander into towns after they have been wiped out to take pictures.
So far the Syrian government reckons around 10,500 people have been killed in the uprising, and the rebel forces say 15,500. We can’t say for sure, but we do know that all the nasty stuff that repressive regimes tend to do when they’re clinging on is happening in Syria. Indiscriminate bombing of civilians. Mass executions. Torture. Sexual violence. Pillaging. All very pedestrian really, by the standards of the backyard wars Europe has been too timid to do anything about in the past twenty years.
It’s not like Europe shouldn’t be able to project its influence – and, if necessary, might – to places like Syria. They’re not faraway fields.
The foreign shores of the Mediterranean are close enough to the EU for determined immigrants to row across to our nearest outcrops in search of a better future for themselves and their families. You can drive on roads that date their ancestry back to Roman times all the way from the capital of that empire to Damascus, Cairo and Tripoli.
You could take a circuitous route and visit living monuments to past indecision like Sarajevo or Srebrenica in the Balkans. There we re-learned a whole lot of moral lessons on man’s inhumanity to man that should make it possible for Europeans to take a decisive stance against murderers in our midst like Bashar al-Assad.
We usually dither and fret about wars and human rights abuses until the Americans are eventually called in to go sort it out. Even in Libya, where it was supposedly the British and French who led the calls for military intervention, the US had to take on the burden of responsibility. European nations and NATO members began to run out of munitions to drop on Colonel Gaddafi’s forces less than two weeks into the campaign and had to be given loaners by the Americans. The European nations were supposed to mount up to 300 sorties per day, but could manage less than 150.
Of the 28 NATO members who voted for the Libya mission – mostly European, remember – less than half participated and only a third were willing to get directly involved in the shooting war. It was similarly so in past conflicts, most notably in the Yugoslav wars, when the US had to take a lead in a conflict thousands of miles and a giant ocean away from home that had a land border with EU members.
European nations lack both the will and the capability to do anything but talk about our strong commitment to human rights and democracy. We tend to channel our efforts through the United Nations, a body that has become so ineffective as to resemble in more than just a passing way its failed predecessor, the League of Nations.
Through the UN we have well-polished diplomats working tirelessly for weeks to draft acceptable language for a letter of condemnation while scruffy soldiers rape women and kill children. We have to skirt around the sensibilities of the Permanent Members of the Security Council and gaze through a mirror darkly reflecting our values as liberal democracies in the governments of Russia and China.
Ireland is a captive party to this farce. For all the good work we’ve done as peacekeepers on UN missions, this country has also allowed its foreign policy to be dictated by people like Vladimir Putin.
Thanks to the Triple Lock system of Irish neutrality it takes government, Dáil and UN consent for us to take part in any international effort to bring peace to a troubled land. Moscow and Beijing therefore have a veto on our ability to act in conscience.
The European Union, and Ireland as a part of it, should decouple its ability to respond to the Syrian crisis from cynical nations playing geopolitics. We’re supposed to be a continent of people who have learned the hard way about mass murder, and the price of our ability to go to bed in relative security and prosperity at home should be our willingness to stand up for innocents who have no one else to turn to.
There is talk of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria to stop the attacks on civilians from the air and possibly to start a bombing campaign on military forces attacking civilians. As per usual it is Uncle Sam who will have to step up and shoulder the burden for democracy and human decency.
The US won’t be around in Europe forever to fight battles in our back yards. Their focus and their forces are shifting to the Pacific. European nations need to get serious about being able to field the kind of forces we look to America to provide.
The EU should stop waiting on the UN and take full flight to protect civilians in Syria. We should start to cripple his forces from the air and provide the rebels with the guidance they need to win and to transition to a new regime. Most of all, we should take immediate action to slow and eventually halt the murder of civilians.
Assad should be forced to leave the country and go live out his life in a villa somewhere in Russia or Iran; or face the ignominious end of that other hard man Gaddafi, begging for his life from people he so blatantly threatened to murder.
In future the EU needs to have a determined policy on genocidal wars waged by tyrannical dictators against their own people in within arms reach of home. We profess to abhor them, but time and again we ignore them. We need to draw a line in the sand and say clearly that when this starts happening – as has been happening in Syria for months – we will not tolerate it, and Russia and Iran and China and other paragons of virtue can wear it. Their gas, their oil and their money aren’t indulgences for absolution in the eyes of history or our maker.
Ireland too needs to get off the fence. Our neutrality, biased and all as it has ever been, was designed for a different age. I don’t propose we field a bigger military and go take on Assad in our PC9s, but that we consider the roles we’ve already agreed to in the likes of EU Battle Groups without the shackles imposed by being enthralled to the decrepit and useless body that is the UN.
It would be absolutely right and proper for a nation with a history of struggle and a set of values as we have to take a part, in a fair if even small one, in helping an oppressed people to break their shackles and overcome a murderous regime. If we abhor what we see in Syria, why do we think it is somebody else’s duty to do something about it?
Aaron McKenna is a businessman and a columnist for TheJournal.ie. You can find out more about him at aaronmckenna.com or follow him on Twitter @aaronmckenna.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Yes bombing works great and if we and Europe partake, the subsequent killing of civilians will only be called “collateral damage”…..so everything will be ok then!
This war should have been stop a long time ago..they are just waiting for another rwanda to happen..
Whats the point of all these UN,G8,G12,commonwealth all about if they cant stand up when the world need them but only see them picking up the pieces when a country has been destroyed..
Mr Aaron mckenna…i will love to know how ireland can help…cos first of all the nation is living on a loan,and this aint no peace keeping job,this is the real mcCoy..
You will need heavy warfare artillaries and we dont have it..so tell us how we can help,when the big guns of warfare are doing nothing..
Well I don’t know what “heavy warfare artilleries” are but Ireland has sent artillery to Lebanon
The problem won’t be collateral damage. The collateral loss of civilian life in the Libyan campaign was almost certainly less than would have been caused by a lengthy civil war between Gaddhafi and the rebel groups. The problem then was when victorious rebel groups massacre civilians of pro-Gaddhafi cities, massacre whole towns of black Africans (google Tawergha), massacre each other in a fight for power.
What’s happening in Syria is terrible, but that doesn’t mean military intervention is the answer. It wasn’t in Iraq, it wasn’t in Libya, and it’ll probably turn out not to have been in Afghanistan. That’s zero for three, Syria could make it zero for four.
http://www.somaliaonline.com/community/showthread.php/58892-Libyan-rebels-massacre-black-Africans
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/rebels-settle-scores-in-libyan-capital-2344671.html
Perhaps JayK we could put up some seating around Syria and sit and watch while the murderous dictator kills more women and children?
Aaron, I don’t think we have any of the type of bombs you’re endorsing we drop – nor the aircraft to deliver them. Secondly, if we were to engage in such a rampage, you will find that the end result would be that a brutal dictatorship will be replaced by ‘religious’ fundamentalists who in probability will be worse than their predecessors.
I see. The Syrians – a traditionally secular lot, by the by – are too uncivilised to have democracy, so let Assad put down the rebellion using the old Soviet playbook and to hell with them?
I’m sorry, but watching children be murdered on the shores of the Med is a bit too much for me to consider somebody else’s problem.
And to quote from the article re: Ireland and what we can do:
“I don’t propose we field a bigger military and go take on Assad in our PC9’s, but that we consider the roles we’ve already agreed to in the likes of EU Battle Groups without the shackles imposed by being enthralled to the decrepit and useless body that is the UN.”
If there was a clear opposition I would agree with you Aaron but in Libya there was something like 6 or 8 different opposition groups while General Dempsey testified to Senate that there is up to 100 different opposition groups in Syria. The country seems like a powder keg to me and unless the European countries are willing to lose troops and stay there for the long haul it would be crazy for them to get involved militarily.
and Aaron without a UN mandate you wish for the EU battlegroup to mobilise? and you do understand that the Irish only supply 450 troops to the group and that the majority of the military hardware in the group is supplied by the other larger groups of the battlegroup, all countries who buy into the UN. So we will splinter off from the UN and expect the EU battlegroup and others to do likewise? you got to be kidding right? We cannot commit enough troops to overthrow a regime without the UN backing and a Europe wide agreement is the only thing that will mobilise the battlegroup, nothing else, unless you wish to send unequipped soldiers into war to fight, then you will see atrocities of Irish troops, with little effect on the whole syrian problem. Will you be at the front aaron, or holding the hand of a dead soldiers mothers as she gets the news of her son or daughter. You want a solution, Its all in – the EU or nothing, with a UN mandate, otherwise we are simply no better than the non-un mandated invasion of Iraq.
Ireland kept her neutrality through the biggest war and the greatest threat in world history, despite the absolute acknowledgment that Nazi Germany would not have left us alone had they won, and you want us to give it all up to take sides in a foreign civil war? I agree that what’s happening is tragic, but I can’t agree with your proposal at all.
I respect all that you say there, but come on, do you honestly think Hitler would have left Ireland alone? I mean really? History aside it is hard to watch report after report detailing all that is happening in Syria, with other countries doing nothing to assist. I think my biggest frustration is Russia’s stance that we just let them sort out themselves.
Sorry mate but that’s when we became neutral to avoid the biggest war the world had seen. Understandable but to me slightly shameful. Neutrality is all bollox if you ask me especially when we ignore so much.
“A foreign civil war,” is precisely what Irelands struggle for independence was considered. If a foreign power had stepped in successfully to put an end to the reign of the Tans we’d still be building monuments to them.
We’re also supposed to represent the civilised, free and prosperous world. I do believe that we have a duty of care towards our fellow human beings in less fortunate places (and not just in wars.) It’s not a bottomless pit, but I believe our actions should be commensurate with our consciences.
Otherwise a famine in Africa or an earthquake in Pakistan is just somebody else’s hard luck for losing the geographical lottery.
@Aaron
I respect and understand that your intentions are good but bombing someone isn’t going to bring piece to a nation. You talk about us being civilized yet you propose the most un-civilized form of fixing deep lying cultural and religious issues. If Ireland is serious about peace we need to train our soldiers to be experts on peaceful conflict resolution techniques, instead of training them to kill, when has killing people brought peace?? To stop conflict in a country you need to understand the reason why each group is fighting and what they expect to achieve from the fighting and figure out a way to fix their issues, bombing only suppresses and highens anger within certain groups, the angry of seeing your innocent family die never goes away and festers over time and gives extremists a valid reason to recruit and fill kids with anger against their “enemy”, so the chance of future conflict is always there. The “civilized world” needs to understand that when people still kill, rape, fight etc. we will never be truly civilized. Non violent conflict resolution is the only way to find peace so that’s where all our armies time, energy and resources need to focus. I don’t see any reason why we can’t start to build a non-violent conflict resolution army. We’ve always been a peaceful nation, let’s keep it that way. :-)
“I don’t see any reason why we can’t start to build a non-violent conflict resolution army.”
That’s a bizarrely naive statement. Look what that attitude achieved in Srebreinca. Sometimes you have to use force to defend yourself or others.
“We’ve always been a peaceful nation, let’s keep it that way. :-)”
Sorry, is this Ireland you are taking about? That couldn’t be less accurate. We have a consistently violent history. No-one does war like the Irish. As well as our many rebellions and civil conflicts at home, we involved ourselves in disproportionately high numbers in British Empire conflicts. The Irish were the first to capture a French Imperial Eagle (Battle of Barossa), Wellington (along with 30% of the Officer corps and 50% of the enlisted men) was Irish, 200,000 Irish fought in the First world war and 120,000 (70,000 from the south) in the Second.
Per capita the Irish have won significantly more Victoria Crosses than any other nation (16% of all awarded)
The Irish fought in huge numbers on both sides of the American Civil War, they fought on both sides of the Spanish Civil War and both sides of the Boer Wars. Admiral William Brown has 1,200 streets named after him in Argentina and is considered the father of their Navy. The father of the US Navy was Commodore John Barry from Wexford. I could go on, even the famous “Rogue Warrior of the SAS” Blair Mayne was Irish.
It’s hard to think of a race that produces more suited to soldiering than the Irish. Which is why Churchill said “The Irish move to the sound of canon like salmon to the sea”
We have never been a peaceful nation
Chuck, we were cannon fodder for imperial armies, 3 square meals plus pay to dodge bullets was a better deal than staying at home and starving for some.
Caroline, does that in some way counter my point that we have a remarkably martial history?
In any case, it’s not true. The 30% of the officer corps that I mentioned were canon fodder? And which side in the US civil war were imperialists? I guess it has to be the Union, but isn’t it good that they won?? I suppose the people who fought against Franco did so out of desperation?
Just say what u meant; you don’t like the Brits.
No Chuck, I don’t like imperialists be they British, American or Spanish (Irish blueshirt’s fought on Franco’s side)
Any officers did not fight out of desperation because they bought a commission, they were probably full of the same boys own jingoism you are. War is no glorious adventure, if you think it is off you go to Syria as a mercenary.
@Chuck
“I don’t see any reason why we can’t start to build a non-violent conflict resolution army.”
That’s a bizarrely naive statement. Look what that attitude achieved in Srebreinca. Sometimes you have to use force to defend yourself or others.
You really don’t understand what I’m saying, maybe we’ll meet someday and I’ll explain it to you :-)
I’m very impressed by your knowledge of Ireland’s history but these people you speak about only make up a small percentage of people at the time they were alive, so the majority were peaceful at any time of our history unless we were fighting for our freedom and I wouldn’t consider someone who’s under attack as violent. We started as hunter gatherers and war and violence only came to us when we were invaded. We could argue all day giving examples of why we are peaceful or why you think we are violent but if you look at our recent past and how we are preceived throughout the world I think you’ll find we are vastly known as a peaceful nation. Look how we’ve emigrated, we are known as an honest, hard-working nation who have enhanced the lifes of people wherever we’ve went building cities and positively contributing to their societies. look at our soccer fans, singing and cheering while others countries fans fight and riot. We are known for our saints, scholars, poets, musicians and we have many Nobel prize winners. Other countries can’t believe how opposing Gaelic fans sit side by side and not fight. I could go on all day why I think we’re a peaceful nation but you think we aren’t and that’s your choice. If we want peace throughout the world we need to find new solutions because bombing innocent people doesn’t bring peace. From my experience, the only way to resolve conflict is through talking and fully understanding the different opinions. I know some countries aren’t at a stage where discussion can be considered but this is what we should be working towards so starting now to train a percentage of our army in non-violent conflict resolution techniques would be a step in the right direction.
Caroline, show me one single jingoistic thing I said.
I know that some Irish fought for Franco. I said that myself in a previous post. You really weren’t paying attention it seems.
Toileach, you said we have always been a peaceful nation. I think the accuracy of that can only be measured against other nations, rather than the percentage of the population engaged in war fighting. (especially since women and children tend not to take up arms)
Compared to other nations, the Irish have shown time and again that we have an aptitude for soldiering that few others can match. That’s not to say we are violent. Comparing fighting in war to violence at soccer is something that you have in common with football hooligans. They are very different things. War is not a recreation and by the way being “honest and hardworking” and fighting in a war are not mutually exclusive
Historically, the Irish are uncommonly likely to get involved in war, whether directly affected or not
@Chuck
A small percentage of men, if we were talking about war I’d hardly take women and children into account :-/
I said Ireland have always been a peaceful nation and I stand by it, well, maybe always is the wrong word. I was talking as a whole society through our whole history, like I said we started as hunter gatherers and I think war only came to us when we were invaded, I agree we have a violent history since the Vikings arrived in 800ad and England in 1189ad but it’s hard not to when you keep getting invaded. In my eyes everything I said in my last comment contributes to us being a peaceful nation, if u chose to ignore them, fair enough but I wasn’t talking solely about war, I was talking about us a nation as a whole, if you just want to pick out war stories of course it won’t look pretty. If someone asked you to describe Ireland as a nation, I’d be fairly confident you would put violent well down your list. We’ve been on the island since 8000bc, so we’d have to research 10,000 years to get an accurate conclusion, so feel free to and let me know the results although you’ll find it hard to find any evidence.
“Compared to other nations, the Irish have shown time and again that we have an aptitude for “just about everything” that few others can match.”
Whatever about our long term past, you’d have to admit we’ve been a peaceful nation since 1916? And will continue to be peaceful unless some bright spark decides to start bombing foreign countries.
The days of war will soon be coming to an end, peace ;-)
Where are the League of Arab States and what are they doing to solve this crisis? Hurlers on the ditch are all too willing to send in others people’s sons, brothers and fathers to fight and die, remember this is what armies are made up from, not robots!
So Aaron, the bombing of the Libyan people by the trusty ‘World Police’ was an example of the behaviour we should aspire to for our country? Presumably you’ll be out in Syria “doing something about it”? This is a pig of an article.
Europe is quite adept at bombing Muslim lands, slaughtering innocents and causing mayhem.
Are the few million Christians living there just visiting?
35 red thumb racists and counting. People need to understand that Muslim society is not western society so western solutions don’t work and won’t work.
You’re right, their religion is anti-democratic……..but so was the West’s once.
Religion is Democratic. Do then god is elected by majority and carry out his peoples wishes. News to me. Anyway democracy is mob rule. Constitutional democracy is the only solution.
Seriously – Giving space to someone openly calling for bombing! After the 100,000 innocent civilians that have been murdered in such ways in Iraq and Afghanistan. Really!
There’s a difference between an air campaign and a full blown invasion. If you paid any attention you’d realise the west is moving towards air campaigns to avoid the debacles that were gulf war 2 and Afghanistan.
Paying attention? How did those women and children die? Air-strikes from the sea. Cowardly murder for oil. Simple.
Cowardly murder from the sea…
Not long ago on another article, statistics were posted about how many innocent civilians were killed in Afghanistan by NATO forces and by the Taliban. The Taliban claimed over 2000 lives while the NATO forces killed just over 400. Bare in mind that before the war in Afghanistan the Taliban were the ruling party and were committing atrocities at the level we’re seeing in Syria today. The Taliban knowingly use civilians as human shields, the Libyan government hid tanks and artillery in suburbs and the Iraqis placed high value targets in the middle of cities during busy times. And you complain about western forces killing civilians? Why not instead of automatically blasting the west, do a little research into the lengths people go to in order to put innocents in harms way in those areas.
Acts of barbarity being used to justify other acts of barbarity is just nonce. So, your sitting at home and suddenly your family is wiped out by a missile launched from the sea hundreds of miles away. This is acceptable? You don’t think that the person witness to that might have a grudge. Mask as you will – when it comes to acts of terrorism Western forces are right up there. Any research i’ve done doesn’t come from the mainstream – which is biased toward certain agendas. Be they Geo-political interests or interests in resources. The fact of the matter is Americans pay for a gallon of petrol what we pay for liter. How is that? Murder – and that’s what it is – has no place where ever it comes from. Openly calling for bombing is disturbing – and we’re civilized??
Probably has something to do with the federal fuel tax being just over $.18 cents per gallon (ie: about 0.14cent Euro per 4 litres)
Average gallon in US now $3.50, federal and state tax is around $0.50cents of that giving you $3 untaxed
Gallon is 3.8 litres so divide $3 by 3.8 you get $0.78cents
Covert that to Euros you get around 0.62cents Euro
Price of litre in Ireland now around 1.63 Euro
This includes 23% VAT, 58.8 cents excise & carbon tax
So 1.63 Euro – .73cents VAT – .58cents excise/carbon = .60cents
Same as the US except for taxes
Will you be picking up your tin hat Aaron? Or are you just another well heeled western man willing to spill any amount of everybody elses blood for your principals?
We are a neutral country Aaron. Our troops are renowned peacekeepers. We should be as proud of that fact as we are of what the worlds media witnessed thursday night following our football teams defeat.
Non-violent football fans gracious in defeat and soldiers who keep the peace and risk their lives defending others instead of dropping bombs on countries full of muslims. Things we can be proud of in an age when our pride has been hammered.
Many of the massacres have been carried out by opposition forces using NATO supplied weapons. Humanitarian intervention is merely a front for regime change in order to advance the USAs neocolonial agenda. This article is merely an organ of propaganda and all the more nauseating that it is presented as journalism. A profession that has sunk to the gutter in recent times.
Well put, thejournal.ie has alot to answer for here, I understand this is an opinion column but why would you seek a fanciful opinion such as this. People need the facts, facts they can use to make up their own mind about a topic of public concern, this column merely distracts people from the facts.
Very good article. This has always been the way, sit back until millions die
The media has truly bamboozled and brainwashed all of you this time. what do you mean by in your back yard? the middle east is faaaar away from ireland. and guess what you sick individuals will not get the bombing, war and bloodshed your blood thirsty souls subconsciously desire because Russia thankfully has come to their senses and do not want to be dragged into another proxy war and also do not want to lose all of their allies in the middle east. you think bombing syria and killing even more people is the answer? have you seen what is happening in iraq? do you have any idea that as we speak Libyans are slaughtering each other the “so called’ revolution in libya has triggered even more bloodshed and civil war. This war is about the US and Israel. They dont give a damn about the Syrian people or Syrian life or Arab people at that. if they did why are they not doing anything about the palestine issue except for postpone every proposed peace plan. the israelis have been genociding the palestinians for years, but your zionist media turns a blind eye. look how many people the coalition forces have slaughtered from Palestine, to Iraq , to Afghanistan. Human life means nothing to them. Assad has vehemently opposed the West and their ‘give up all your rights or die’ policy. why dont u talk about the third elements in syria. the terrorists al qaeda terrorists who we are supporting??? wait a second didnt these guys supposedly blow up the wtc and incinerated 3000+ civilians and we are supporting them? oh hold on a second we created al qaeda and funded them billions in the 80′s and early 90′s. it is not Assad who is killing his people he is not a madman or a tyrant and is different to the other leaders. all he is trying to do is restore peace to his once peaceful country, most people in Syria actually support assad otherwise it would be impossible for him to govern. even those that opposed him before are supporting him now, I know this as a FACT. MEDA STOP LYING TO THE BRAINLESS AMASSED SHEEPS. THIS IS A FAR CRY FROM THE TRUTH AND YOU JOURNALISTS SHOULD BE ABSOLUELTY ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES, YOUR DUTY WAS TO BRING PEOPLE THE TRUTH.STOP COPY AND PASTING OFF REUTERS NEWS, I HAVE MET JOURNALISTS WHO HAVE BEEN TO SYRIA, THEYVE BEEN TO HOMS THEYVE EVEN BEEN TO THE NEIGHBOURHOOD WHERE THE SO CALLED UPRISING IS TAKING PLACE. THE MEDIA IS REPORTING OPPOSITE NEWS IN THE MOST STARKINGLY CONTRASTED, BIASED LIES I HAVE EVECR HEARD
Europe has no part in this, it is the responsibility of Muslims and Muslims alone.
Sorry but look around you..who is calling all the shots…and they aint even seen asia or the arab world before..
You must mean Syrians and Syrians alone, because surely you don’t think that a religion and a country are ye same thing.
Aaron, if you feel so strongly about this issue why not make your way into Syria and join up with the “Rebel” Forces?
Our Permanent Defence Forces are here to protect the Irish people, and assist with legitimate UN peacekeeping operations. We may have surrendered our economic sovereignty but surrendering our youth as cannon fodder in Imperial wars is so 1914.
x x x x x x x x x x
Aaron this article is nothing but fluff, what people need is realistic journalism not bar stool bantering like this. Yes people are dying in syria, Yes their regime is comitting awful atrocities in the name of stability and yes something should be done, but you dont explain the real life applications of what you propose. The larger nations such as the US are not the knight in shining armour for europe, the US will only partake in a war if it is strategically or economically beneficial to them. Look at syria, it has no natural resources of benefit to the US, no oil no gas, no war. Why would they need syria strategically for a future offensive on Iran, when they have Iraq, Afghanistan & their friend Israel who they have partnered with. The americans never went in to lebanon or the western bank to stop the Israeli systematic wipeout of these peoples. They stood idley by as the same atrocities now happening in syria were being comitted, albeit that was from an outside agressor. In the case of Ireland fronting an interdiction in syria, you must be realistic again, and honest with your readers, We have a sub 10k soldiers, who are so spread thin currently due to budget restraints, cap on recruitment, increased retirement, other overseas commitments, Aid to the civil power etc that the most we could offer is probably 500 bodies at most, and that many feet on the ground in a conflict like syria is but a drop in the mediterranean.
I don’t think he’s proposing that Ireland unilaterally invade Syria. He’s calling for an international force to intervene and for Ireland to contribute
Yes but the means by which he seeks to achieve this are impossible, I understand he doesnt mean for ireland to single handedly sort out syria, but his solution is fiction. We cannot interfere without UN or EU wide agreement, which sadly for the syrian people is along time off.
So Aaron you advocate killing to stop killing? Ireland is Neutral and a hawkish journalist isn’t going to change Irish opinion on war! How did this get into The Journal?
What is Ireland neutral about?
Oh sorry about that Chuck I didn’t realise we were at war but thanks for informing me.
Well the Peace and Neutrality Alliance are always telling us how we are participants in the “war on terror” so thank them
I think you need to learn what it means for a country to adopt an official policy of neutrality though. It’s not in our constitution and as I pointed out elsewhere we did not sign the Hague convention. We are not neutral
That wasn’t my point. The constitution has nothing to do with “Irish opinion” as I clearly stated. Just because we didn’t sign the Hague convention doesn’t mean we should go to war. I don’t think I know one person in Ireland who sees war as a solution to any of these complex problems in the middle east and I certainly can’t even envisage a scenario where Ireland would be dropping bombs that we don’t have in the first place. Moral issues aside we are up to our tits in debt and war costs serious amounts of money but I would imagine the type of people who advocate war would also support borrowing to go to war.
You put “Irish opinion” in quotation marks, but what you actually said was “Ireland is Neutral” which isn’t true
No-one is suggesting declaring war on any country. Abandoning the triple-lock does not amount to a declaration of war, but we should reserve the right to use our army as we see fit, not as China sees fit
Do you see what you just did Chuck? You nit picked a very small portion of my argument and tried to use semantics to make it out like you know more than others. Ireland is neutral in so far as we are not at war with anybody and that there has been no official change in status to our traditional military policy on neutrality.
Technically since we allow stop-overs at Shannon and we also have an active peace keeping force among other things you could argue that we are not neutral but it still doesn’t doesn’t change the fact that officially we are a neutral country.
I also mentioned “Irish opinion” so that is why I put it in quotation marks. If you like you can have a read of my comment again.
The article title clearly states “It’s time for Europe to bomb Assad and Ireland should help”. If dropping bombs on a country isn’t a declaration of war I am not sure what is but I never said anything about Ireland declaring war so if you would kindly re-read my comment clearly it would be much appreciated and feel free to ask for help interpreting it if you like or even better I can explain in detail what I meant.
My point was that this was a hawkish article and that the vast majority of Irish are against war. Get it?
No, I’m not nit-picking, I’m correcting your factually incorrect statement that “officially we are a neutral country.”
No, we are not. We have no policy of neutrality. We have had opportunities through the years to declare one, and we have never taken it. It’s not in our constitution. It’s not in our laws. We also behave in a manner which is directly at odds with accepted norms for neutral countries. There is no “technically” about it. We are not neutral
Of course most people are against war. Only psychopaths and profiteers are in favour of war. But being against war and being against allowing the Chinese to dictate what we do with our army are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes war is necessary an the decision should lie with us, not with foreign powers.
There is more to the article than the headline. Aaron advocates abandoning the triple-lock. That’s what I’ve been talking about.
Whatever about the content of the article (which is pretty stupid) – the headline is absolutely ridiculous. “It’s time for Europe to bomb Assad” what the f*ck…
I think u have left out some important issues like that u have massive amounts of western funded and armed foreign insurgents and as revealed by the Stratfor wikileaks releases, Blackwater( Americas private army ) heavily involved in Syria. Plus the country is a cauldron of different secterian factions. Lets not kid ourselves, this is just a prelude to a war with Iran and then god knows what and i expect this warmongering neocon crap from fox news and the likes of John McCain but from a Irishman its pretty hard to stomach.
He left out more than a few important issues. This is a disgusting, misinformed, war mongering pile of rubbish. Ignorance is not an opinion. The Journal, as was the case with Libya are complicit in this march to war and should immediately contact Lizzie Phelan A REAL journalist to give some facts on this situation not some nonsensical rhetoric.
He left out more than a few important issues. This is a disgusting, misinformed, war mongering pile of rubbish. Ignorance is not an opinion. The Journal, as was the case with Libya are complicit in this march to war and should immediately contact Lizzie Phelan A REAL journalist to give some facts on the situation not some nonsensical rhetoric.
‘EU should stop waiting on the UN’. Translation: the EU should disregard international law and norms. Once we’ve done this in Syria we will have set a precedent, where will it stop? Syria? There’s lots of other vile regimes out there. Bahrain? Saudi Arabia (that could be problematic!) What makes the author assume that we have any right to do this? Surely it would be better for the Syrians to overthrow their own regime rather than have outsiders come in and destroy the country. What if bombimg from the air doesn’t work, should we then send in ground forces? If it’s OK to bomb a country from the air then why not invade? On a practical note, Europe is bust, so are we. How are we supposed to afford the bombs and other military paraphenelia that is needed to destroy a country
And how would you say the rebels go about overthrowing them? They have no planes, tanks, APC’s. Just some guns and a few RPG’s. The Syrian government has the backing of China and Russia and therefore have the use of all the latest military hardware the Russians have to offer.
America set the precedent as world police, invading Iraq and Afghanistan to “liberate an oppressed people”, it’s there moral duty now to continue the trend they have started. If not then at least arm the rebels with enough fire power to at least even the playing field. With the fact that Syria isn’t an oil rich country, I seriously doubt this will happen.
My god what a thing to say that we as Irish people should be involved in the bombing of the people of Syria. Have we not gone far enough in Europe in supporting war crimes in Afganistan,Iraq,Palestine?
Calling for more bombs to be dropped isn’t going to help anyone. People all over the globe suffer from American war crimes.
If you want to stop the suffering in Syria be my guest head on out there and do your bit but don’t be calling for bombs to be dropped on anybody in the name of the Irish people
Our DEFENCE Forces perform admirably as peacekeepers but you want us to ditch neutrality so we can become cannon fodder on foreign fields?
Will you be enlisting Aaron? so you can meet your maker fighting for Democracy & Freedom!
Never was too good at geography but I would thing its a good bet to say these is very little if any oil reserves in Syria ?
Has anyone actually seen any of these alleged atrocities occurring or do we all just believe it because the media says it is so? Looking at the Zeitgeist movie the idea of the Jackals as Economic Hit men comes to mind. But who knows.
Yet more time given to another parroting ‘Churno’ who has not the slightest knowledge of what is going on in Syria. Even your mainstream media colleagues now admit that the Houla masacre was not caused by the Syrian Army. You need to look at the FSA terrorists who are backed by NATO (to cause a ‘strategy of tension’) for the past 16 months with US,UK, and French special forces on the ground assisting. You are duty bound as a journalist to INVESTIGATE what is really happening and not simply be a proxy for the monsters who have created this mess. Suggesting that bombing to kill more children is a solution, is as shameful as those forces from outside Syria who are causing the current carnage. Be part of the solution, not part of the problem if you are really interested in saving children’s lives.
Ireland is NOT a legally neutral country (and there is no such thing as “neutral lite”). We have never signed up the the Hague Conventions of 1907 and have never behaved in a manner consistent with Schwarzenberger’s definition . As for being selectively neutral; that presupposes some specific conflict. What are we neutral about?
As Aaron points out, this ridiculous “triple-lock” gives a veto to Beijing, Washington, Moscow, London and Paris – which makes it ironic that is has so much support from the Irish left.
Why is being neutral so great anyway? Do you pat yourself on the back if you ignore that your neighbour beats his kids?
The people saying that the Irish army couldn’t contribute to a campaign against Assad’s army don’t know much about he Irish army. It’s true Ireland doesn’t have an air-force for bombing anyone (which is good) but at some point any international force needs troops on the ground and they have routed militia like this in past
The Estonians & Kiwis are contributing in Afghanistan, Ireland could contribute there or in Syria or anywhere else but first we have to cast off the twin shackles of our treasonous triple-lock and the public misconception that neutrality is something to be proud of. Let’s make our own foreign policy instead of having it dictated by China and Russia
Ireland may be quasi neutral but why on earth would we go to Afghanistan with troops when the british and US are withdrawing?? We are in Afghan currently albeit as a small role with UN observers on the pakistan border, as peacekeepers, our mandated role.
Are we talking about Syria or Afghanistan?
There is no such thing as “peacekeepers”, Ireland has soldiers in Afghanistan and has had soldiers there for years doing a variety of jobs within ISAF. As for “our mandated role” who gives us a mandate? Why is it good to demand of ourselves that we get China or Russia’s permission to do what we want with our own army?
In any case, the point Im making is that Irish troops are perfectly capable of contributing to missions involving regular combat than most people here seem to realise.
There’s also no such thing as “quasi-neutral”. This is just another term (like “peacekeepers”) that has worked it’s way into pubic discourse to make everyone feel better. We are non-aligned. That’s all.
Wow Aaron, what a totally original article. seriously though I always wonder nearly all articles we read are anti ASsad, but does he have majority support of the people and is it just a minority who are uprising. either way, military intervention won’t solve anything
“As per usual it is Uncle Sam who will have to step up and shoulder the burden for democracy and human decency.”
Jesus christ.
Jesus christ we do enough suffering for other countries as it is! I’m not going to die for them now aswell!! This is the stupidest idea I’ve heard yet!
Aaron’s right, we should stand up for the oppressed people in Bahrain.
Oh sorry, that’s not conflict du jour. A fallen Syria better suits Western Foreign Policy than a fallen Bahrain.
bomb the author of this article…I am ashamed to be European some times.
Neutrality was the right policy for WW2 (anyone who disagrees might point out how many AA guns we had in 1939); neutrality-lite is the right policy now. We don’t have the capacity for any war and the EU should not try to compete as the policeman of the world just because it delayed in doing so in Bosnia or Kosovo. Neutrality within the EU is by definition a lighter form of it but it allows for diplomatic channels to be used more. Assad with be tried as a war criminal.
It’s a civil war.
Every nation has gone through it.
The decision must be left with the people and not some outsiders assumed opinion.
These events are usually the last throws of an outward bound regime.
Journalist Robert Fisk has pointed out that European and American reluctance to aggressively pursue a solution has more to do with strategic self-interest. Namely that Europe’s establishment intend constructing pipelines through the Middle East to offer supplies of oil and gas that will break Russia’s monopoly.
If Fisk is correct, the unchallenged slaughter of innocents in Syria has more to do with securing Europes energy supply rather than a lack of capabilities.
We are fortunate in Europe that we can sit on our hands while innocents are slaughtered and still indulge alarmist Luddite hysteria regarding fracking.
The conflict in Syria is a civil war. Sunni Muslims backed by Saudis and Qatar amongst others versus Shia Muslims backed by Syrian Government and Iran. Let them sort it out themselves.
oh ya more bombs. History has shown us that really works. Is this person actually Irish?
Uncle Sam my fat ass. You need to read outside of the mainstream history books, Mr McKenna, with respect.
Almost *any* time they have gotten involved abroad, it has been to protect their imperialist interests and standing as #1 world power. You might say any time they’ve gotten involved abroad has been to further globalist aims, small step by small step (I mean the elite that run America, and almost every other place you can think of, whose interests go deeper than mere nationalism).
Vietnam and WWII were both started by false flag operations. I believe 9/11 also falls into that category, and they pulled no punches in associating that with Iraq (ridiculous), lying about WMDs and crocodile tears for victims of Saddam (whom I don’t excuse) to get their contractors in there, and secure territory and oil. They back up one of the most lecherous, genocidal and racist governments in the world – that of Israel.
There could be a case for intervening in Syria. I don’t know much about the situation, which I fully admit. And I am skeptical of 90% of what I hear in the mainstream media (which is *why* I know so little), because even that bastion of British level-headed sober objectivity – The BBC – is so often blatantly setting the stage for the next war. And that’s the least outwardly hysterical one – most of the others are worse. And the ‘alternative’ news sources so often lack rigour and discrimination, which makes good news hard to come by indeed.
This is why I resent you calling Europe a bunch of chickens and elevating the US to some kind of gentle giant. Get real, man. If you want to talk intervening in Syria, I’d leave that angle well and truly out of it.
correction – I said WWII was started by a false flag operation. It wasn’t, but America’s entry into the war was.
Imagine FG had nukes, that’s Aaron McKenna. Sweet mother of Jesus, someone lock this lad up.
Before the armchair generals start sabre rattling they should read the words of a real soldier, War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler.
Simply from a practical perspective, Syria is not Libya. Or Srebrenica, or Sarajevo. It’s possible that it would take an invasion to bring an end to the violence taking place at the moment. And then there would be more violence. How many people support Assad? You don’t know, do you? Where do you draw the line where democracy becomes irrelevant and the UN instead decides what’s best for the people of Syria? Democracy is important, right?
It seems incredibly obvious that this was written with very little research and comes across as more of a rant than a well thought out, provocative, opinion piece. To argue for the bombing of a country by a third-party takes significantly more intellectual prowess than this Republican-hysteria. Your previous opinion pieces have had some merit but this is floundering in a pool of mediocrity.
theJournal, can we get some new voices, please?
I wonder how many shares this author has in the arms trade? his propoganda is blatent: ‘the kind of force we look to america to provide.’ Who looks to America? Every time I read the comments sections of papers, the readers are against wars and invasions.
no pills being took here el brujillo.just reality pills.try one some time you seem like someone who needs a few.we all know how this will pan out if it is left to itself.we can chicken out for fear of offending the russians and chineese or get stuck in and sort it out the way it should be sorted.its nasty business but it has to be done .history shows what happens when the outside world doesnt intervene.rwanda,balkans,the sudan right now and lots more .one show of brutal power from the west could end it straight away saving lots of lives in the long rur and reminding those russian and chinneese that they dont rule the earth
Yes the people in the the Maghreb have risen up against dictatorships. But they have risen up for democracy and social justice, not the neoliberal agenda of the west. The author speaks of this nations history of struggle, well newsflash: The struggle isn’t over even if the war is. Genuine Republicans and Socialists who respect the struggle for people to have self determination and social justice, have no truck with the neo-imperialist agenda that the author is cynically pushing behind a facade of interest in the plight of the Syrian people.
Precisely. Couldn’t be said any clearer than this.
Maybe all those tens of thousands of people who protested and demonstrated against George bush could do the same against Assad!
The silence from the left is deafening right now while the killing goes on.
it’s long past the time where tge “veto”, for better or for worse, was gotten rid of at the UN. no single country should stand in the way of the majority in these cases. regardless of what their self interests are.
Why does everyone want to level whole cities and kill thousands just to kill one cockroach? What happened to assassinations. We need American muscle, Russia and China would run riot over Europe if the states weren’t there flexing. Irish politicians are lap dogs in Europe, we all know that. No amount of chattering from Endas “shitlips Kenny is going to make any difference.
They know exactly where Assad is now. Before any escalation takes place he would not be hard to find. Why is he not taken out? I don’t know. Maybe no one knows what to do next re Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia. There would be consequences for the whole region. A very complex problem.
Way too simplistic look at the conflict, it’s not like we can just go in and bomb them back to the stone age and expect everything to be perfect thereafter. While Assad is a tyrannical dictator so was Sadam Hussein and when he was taken out of the picture the country erupted into a civil war that killed far more then Sadam ever did and that was with the presence of the most powerful military force the world has ever seen trying to keep peace in the country. Yes something needs to be done about Assad but its not near as simple as everyone is making out.
We gave our government full autonomy in running our economy, and we saw how well that worked. Why on earth would we ever give them full autonomy in directing our military after that, regardless of the ethics or logistics of the proposed action?
I strongly agree with every single point you have made in this article Aaron. Although when you say that you don’t propose that we field a bigger military, we could at least spend a few euros equiping the one we have properly. Especially the all but neglected Naval service and Air Corps.
Quite right! We’re an island, surrounded by vast, extremely valuable waters. We need a bigger navy to police them. Not a huge navy, not aircraft carriers, but more of what we have.
The Assad regime are ignoring international pressure through embargos etc – something needs to be done! Ignore the media and have a look at the thousands of people on facebook and twitter begging for help for their families. Through my job I have the pleasure of knowing 3 syrian families and they said that the assads are brutal and 2 of the families have had family members executed because they spoke out against the regime.
Further pressure needs to be put on the regime!
There’s another cargo ship on it’s way from Russia carrying weapons to arm the regime. The whole situation sucks.
Spot on!!
Very well said Aaron.
Yes Assad should go. Will military intervention kill innocent people? Yes. Will he be removed without it? Possibly in the very long term. Will innocent people die anyway? Yes.
What is to be done?
Irish neutrality has always been the cheapest option and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Irish soldiers would love to be involved in a mission like this. Especially because it would involve doing something tangible to alleviate people’s suffering. The government won’t involve us because it will cost them money and they will worry about body bags, both Irish and Syrian.
The government have never equipped the defence forces with the ability to be anything but defensive for a prolonged period. Aggression would require a commitment of money and equipment they have never been comfortable with.
We’ll just sit on the fence and make the required noises, half arsed country that we are.
Another brilliant article, I couldn’t agree more. We saw in the 90′s that it took the Americans to come and sort out a European problem in Europe’s back yard, what became known as the Balkan Conflict. For about a year Europe talked and dithered while thousands of people died, we watched some of it on TV. It’s obvious that the UN can do no more to people like Assad then send them a stern letter, and even then countries like Russia and China may veto such a vote worried that some day they may be the ones recieving such letters. It must be terrifying to get a letter like that. While many people criticise America and their foreign policy using the term “worlds policeman” its times like these when everyone turns to America and expects them do do something, often asking “why don’t they do this or that”. For their part, with regard to the Syrian conflict, America seems to be prepared to act as a political mediator with groups like the Arab League, hoping maybe for an Arab solution to an Arab problem but they seem to be very reluctant to be drawn into military action, possibly fearing a militant islamic backlash.
This is another European problem in Europe’s backyard and all the European countries combined should be more than capable of sorting it, yes Ireland hasn’t got the equipment but for what it’d cost to build an olympic sized swimming pool in Mayo you could buy plenty of bombs that another country could drop on Assad.
Just flood the country with UN troops so they cant aerial attack the cities they are in.
I wrote this somewhere else but I think that it can contribute to this discussion:
Although over a decade since the NATO led mission against Serbia (and Kosovo) the legacy and implications of this campaign are still apparent. The lessons learned, or perhaps not learned during the collapse of the former Yugoslavia and the subsequent wars have come back to haunt western powers and their addled realist assumptions of world order. The shape of this apparition has taken the is the rotting Ba’athist regime in Syria.
The 1999 intervention in Kosovo (in political terms) can be seen as significant as the fall of the Berlin wall. This is evident because it proscribes a transformed role for the UN, the EU and particularly NATO in the post cold war era. The issue of human rights is at the heart of this transformation. It is in these circumstances that we saw the outbreak of the world’s first large scale militarized intervention on humanitarian grounds. The powers that dithered before acting to save Bosnia from itself, and moved little faster for Kosovo are still unsure of their mandate in this ‘post-Westphalian’ system. If history has judged the international community harshly for their response to the implosion of Yugoslavia, it seems that future generations will be baffled as to why one genocide wasn’t enough for us to learn.
History however, as the saying goes, repeats itself, so how long will it be before western powers shift again from indifference to interventionism in Syria? Or will they this time? In the post 9/11 world, as the US and UK curtail human rights at home, the prospect of intervening to protect human rights abroad appears less probable than it did in the closing days of the twentieth century. Particularly when there are imitated benefits for a weak and possibly unstable Syria as a buffer between a terrified Israel and an irritated Iran.
Perhaps the UN, NATO and other organisations with the capacity to intervene are seeing the conflict through Kenneth Waltz tinted glasses. The fact that NATO chose to intervene in a similar situation in Kosovo and even Libya, suggests to me that this organisation was attempting to do a job that someone else was better capable of, but was unwilling to do so.
This also points to a serious flaw in UN doctrine. Despite the ethos of the UN being based around individual rights it is still ultimately a realist organisation in that a select few states can authorise or veto action. The difficulty with NATO is that by the time the atrocities against Kosovar Albanians had started in the mid to late 1990’s its original purpose had vanished. This existential crisis has been compounded by the accession of various ex-Warsaw pact states in the 2000’s.
So are we to assume that NATO has found a new role for itself as the ‘enforcer’ of human rights by any means necessary? Or only when the UN is constrained from acting?
The Westphalian system of non-intervention, even in the face of the worst kind of human rights abuses to me seems immoral. But then, as now the idea of ‘enforcing’ human rights seems illogical.
What is to be done?
That doesn’t really add anything.
Yes, the bombing of Serbia in 1999 muddies the legal waters regarding intervention
Yes, it was very selective but hardly illogical
But did it succeed in saving lives? Almost certainly yes. And subsequently the presence of KFOR saved ethnic Serbs within Kosovo from attacks by Albanian mobs.
If you have unanimity amongst the major players on the world stage (essentially the Security Council) then you don’t need to be within the confines of international law. Unfortunately, force solves almost everything. Occasionally this is a good thing because otherwise the world stands around navel gazing while people are murdered en masse.
The Global Community, for what that phrase is worth, can’t solve every problem. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t solve the problems we can
An innocent but naive attempt to understand the geo-political engineering in Yugoslavia (and relate it to Syria) resulting in the failed state of Kosova, to create a conduit asylum for heroin among other things. I refer you to the following article to explore further. http://bit.ly/MhOZDN
If you actually looked at libya and Gadaffi, He built a huge infrastructure, gave people free medical care, if they couldn’t be treated there, their costs were paid to be treated abroad, anyone getting married was given 50,000 to get started if you wanted to farm you were given land and seed, petrol was 14 cents a gallon taxes were minimal and they had NO Central Bank, thats the real reason they were invaded, that and oil. All this went hand in hand with false media reporting on events and hired “terrorists” shipped in,The country is worse off than ever now as for others. Poppy production in Afganistan was down to 10% of the norm and is now up 3 times higher than ever the terrorists started a central bank within 2 weeks with american intervention also take a look at their assets on a geological map. Egypt had no central bank and look at their inflation the list goes on Syria will be next because of ignoramuses like the above reporter Mass Murder of innocents for a media lie and vast profits to the developers installed after. I hope you read this and I hope it haunts you every time you see an injured child on the news I wouldn’t lower myself to call you what I think of you
I WARN YOU PEOPLLE OF IRELAND, GET RID OF THE BRITISH FROM YOUR LIVES. AND TELL THE USA, ENGLAND FRANCE AND ISRAEL, SYRIA IS GODS HOMELAND AND YOU SHOULD WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT LET MY PEOPLE GO.
CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA AND BRITAIN .YOU ARE THE NEWEST MEMBERS OF THE GENOCIDE CLUB. YOU HAVE MURDERED AN ESTIMATED ONE MILLION IRAQI CHILDREN AND ANOTHER MILLION AND A HALF IRAQIS OF ADULT SIZE,BRAVO. I SAW HILARY AND THE OTHER GENO MAN,THE TURK SMILING ONCE AGAIN,CAUSE THEY ARE SMELLING ANOTHER SUCK BLOOD SESSION. I GUESS BIRDS OF A FEATHER FLOCK TOGETHER. AND LET ME TELL YOU THIS, THE GOOD LORD ONLY APPEARED TO THE CHILDREN OF SHEM AND YOUR DECENDANTJAPHETH SEEMS TO BEAR A JEALOUSY EVER SINCE.
I GUESS THE GOOD LORD KNOWS WHO THE BETTER SON IS. NOW THAT YOU’VE GOTTEN YOUR REMINDER,GO AHEAD AND BOMB HIS PEOPLE. JUST REMEMBER WHEN THE GOOD LORD SENDS THE HURRICANES AND STORMS AND PESTILENCES, JUST REMEMBER YOU THREW STONES AT THE LORDS HOME.FIRST.
the question posed….should europe bomb assad and should we help.europe should indeed bomb assad and totally wipe away any sign that he ever existed.it should have been done months ago.there is going to be deaths no matter what when these struggles get to a certain point.the priority is to make sure the right people survive and the lunatic and his followers are wiped out.should we help?well the irish army have very little to offer any conflict in real terms but whats the point in having them at all when they could be deployed for the benefit of mankind elsewhere.forget the un.its decisions are used as an excuse for disinterested countries to do nothing.its basically a bigger veresion of the government here in the way it avoids making any worthwhile decision
Keep taking the happy pills, hannibal
Great article. Well said Aaron.
Ireland vs Syria. That would be some laugh. Since Ireland has no war fighting capacity, most likely not even able to defend our “neutrality”, what practical assistance could we actually offer? Or do you mean we should vote for sending other Europeans off to the wars?
America is the largest western country, and is protected by not being attached to the countries it attacks. Obviously 9/11 speed what lengths it’s enemies ned to go to to attack the mainland. Europe is fragmented militarily, politically and in the constituent countries outlooks. Just look at how it is dealing with the current fiscal crises. Only America is shouting about Assad. The Europeans are too busy, focused on our own problems. It would take absolute unity in Europe to enable it to make military decisions like those which America makes, and implements. We will disagree with America’s military policies, then send in military support after the fact. We need America, their policies, whilst sometimes brutal (blanket bombs / rendition), usually serves our interests just fine. We are too diverse as a continent to agree on anything meaningful, to enable us to have a concrete military policy.
I appreciate the argument but I think the regime will collapse anyway through economic sanctions. CBS News were reporting recently that without Iranian money, they are down to their last €6 billion. The key then is to persuade outside powers to stop propping up the regime with arms (e.g. Russia) and money. Yes the scenes on our TV screens are horrific, but the danger is that the new regime will do the same to the minorities supporting Assad, including Alawites, Christians and Shia Muslims. It is a more complicated picture than is made out. I have heard it reported that Islamic extremists in the Opposition have expelled most of the Christians from the town of Homs, which is an Opposition stronghold. We need to be careful we don’t end up supporting an Islamist Syria exporting terror around the world. What I might support however is for Western task forces to secure Syria’s WMD sites in the event of a power vacuum to stop them falling into the hands of terrorists. It might be possible to persuade Russia to back a UNSC Resolution on this if they are allowed to take part.
have your say