y va marquer wrote:
Those who critique Trump’s unilateral assault on Syria are portrayed as heartless in the face of the gassing of little children, just as opponents of war in Iraq and Libya were demonised as indifferent to those murdered and tortured and persecuted by Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi. So let’s be clear. The gassing of those children, and the unspeakably sickening deaths that they suffered, are despicable crimes. President Assad is a blood-soaked tyrant who has slaughtered countless numbers of Syrians with his barrel bombs, and he deserves to spend his final days rotting in a jail cell. Vladimir Putin, too, is caked in the blood of Syrian and Chechen children alike. If I genuinely thought Donald Trump was the plausible saviour of Syria’s children, then I would reconsider my position.
This is pretty much how I feel about it too. The situation isn't too similar to 2003, but the way in which the attack near Idlib is being used to create a shaky moral imperative for a military intervention is very familiar.
Yes it is terrible that children have died, unthinkable, but the most horrible thing is that voters in the west, we the distant and little heeded stakeholders in these imperial democracies, cannot uncritically allow atrocities to justify further violence.
Forcing Assad out of power could prolong the region-wide humanitarian disaster even further, one which has already killed millions in the past two decades, and displaced over ten million.
The foreign forces involved are all motivated by geopolitics and not human life, and neither Assad continuing in power nor forced regime change would be a wonderful outcome for Syria. And who has an alternative?
