 |
culled from theatlantic.com
|
An editorial piece in the New York Times of 22nd June 2016 titled 'The false lure of military intervention in Syria', is put in perspective.
It quite aptly details the difficulties that the United States faces with bowing to suggestions made by its diplomats, that confronting the Assad regime with the threat of military force is a way of nudging him towards seeking a peaceful resolution to a civil war that has destroyed much of his country, and caused as much as 400,000 deaths as well as untold suffering.
It is quite easy to see how the dynamic on the ground creates a scenario of choices ranging from 'limited', to 'not good' as the editorial has so eloquently described, Russia's ambiguity on the matter of Assad and Syria being perhaps the most potent variable that serves to perpetuate the crises.
The editorial however asks 'whither a workable and rational alternative strategy' from these diplomats, without giving this question as much weight as the detail of a quagmire that is the Syrian war.
On Syria, whither the good choices? Perhaps the answer lies in a United States that must change its mind and fast, about not just what it justifiably sees as Assad's role in bringing about death and destruction, but also his role real or potential, in achieving a desperately needed peace.
