I've been reading a lot of stories about Syria like this one. A lot of people are questioning why we are not intervening in Syria like we did in Libya. Probably the best explanation was given by Peter Galbraith, former ambassador to Croatia.
On "Real Time with Bill Maher" Ambassador Galbraith said the two major differences are that Syria is mostly land locked, making smuggling in weapons difficult, and the opposition has not seized any territory, making it nearly impossible to determine who to give smuggled weapons to. In Libya the opposition almost immediately seized Benghazi, a port city, before help was offered.
It should be noted that we still trade freely with China and Russia after the two blocked an attempt at sanctions for the horrific shelling of their own citizens in the city of Homs.
I only wrote this because I've seen a few stories about Syria, and I've heard many ask why we aren't helping, but I don't hear this explanation given. I think the key to doing something in Syria without committing troops is going to involve all of America suffering economically to bring Russia and China on board. I'm not sure we're all really willing to do that much to help Syria though.
No comments:
Post a Comment