This is a MUST READ article by the influential Economist. Check it out!
Normally, I am a supporter of the Economist’s viewpoint but here, I have severe reservations.
The Economist focuses on the three options namely:
- Do nothing
- Replace Assad
- Hit the Syrian dictator hard for using chemical weapons, with a targeted attack on strategic targets
It favors giving Assad one last chance to hand to hand over his chemical weapons or suffer the consequences of the third option.
Because President Obama has dithered for far too long, all options carry enormous risks of escalation into a much wider crisis, in my view. It seems that UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, has been firmly encouraging Barack Obama towards option 3; however, we know that Cameron is a weak leader with a record of bungled policy decisions, looking for bolster his image. Now we have a potential geopolitical crisis emerging.
- The Difference Between Striking Syria and Targeting Assad (newsy.com)
- The Economist’s New Cover On Syria Is Not Subtle (businessinsider.com)
- Barack Obama warns of Syria chemical weapons threat to US (telegraph.co.uk)
- Has this been forgotten? UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use (uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com)
- Officials: Obama Prepared to Go at Syria Alone (israelnationalnews.com)
- Self-serving posturing over Syria Posted by Melanie Phillips (dralfoldman.com)
- Alan Grayson: We Are Broke Why are we going to spend Billions in a War in Syria ? (newsbooze.com)
- British MPs reject military intervention in Syria (rt.com)
- Uk Parliament Stunningly Rejects David Cameron on Syria (businessinsider.com)
- British Parliament Votes Against Syria Intervention (israelnationalnews.com)