Switch to Desktop Site
 
 

Direct foreign intervention is the only feasible option for Syria crisis

The recent Geneva agreement is ill fitted to reality in Syria, and a new Human Rights Watch report details torture by the Bashar al-Assad regime. Intervention appears to be the only means for halting human rights violations, stabilizing the conflict, and ensuring a sustainable transition.

Image

Black smoke billows from shelling near a mosque in Talbiseh, the central province of Homs, Syria in this image made from amateur video released July 2. Op-ed contributor Brock Dahl acknowledges that 'America cannot act as a global policeman that deploys troops to every crisis-ridden situation' but says: 'Ensuring the end of the Assad regime, if done properly, also has strategic benefits for the US that policymakers should consider.' (The Associated Press cannot independently verify this material.)

Anonymous/Ugarit News via AP video

About these ads

Over the weekend in Geneva, world powers penned a vague agreement to support the establishment of a transitional government in Syria – potentially composed of members of the opposition and the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The purported solution appears ill fitted to the reality on the ground, however, and a new Human Rights Watch report details widespread, systematic torture by the Assad regime.

Direct intervention is quickly appearing to be the only feasible means for halting gross human rights violations, stabilizing the conflict, and ensuring a sustainable transition.

The Geneva proposal, which was agreed upon by the United States, Russia, China, the Arab League, the European Union, and others, makes calls for a state of equilibrium and transition without providing a definitive road map to such a state. This crippling ambiguity may be an inevitable result of Russia’s support for, and Western nations’ opposition of, the Assad regime. Given those differences, however, it is difficult to imagine how such an ambiguity can be corrected.

Next

Page 1 of 4

Share