Syria – Hit him hard – Economist lead

Bashar al-Assad - Caricature

Bashar al-Assad – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

This is a MUST READ article by the influential Economist. Check it out!

Syria – Hit him hard

Normally, I am a supporter of the Economist’s viewpoint but here, I have severe reservations.

I agree with the Economist that President Obama has dithered by not intervening in Syria a year ago, and now he has made intervention much harder and more risky.

The Economist focuses on the three options namely:

  1. Do nothing
  2. Replace Assad
  3. 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.

Any thoughts?


Enhanced by Zemanta

5 responses

  1. Pingback: My top twelve blogs – last week « Dr Alf's Blog

  2. Pingback: Syria – Hit him hard – Economist lead: An alternative view – John Gelmini « Dr Alf's Blog

  3. Pingback: The west is playing in to Moscow’s hands on Syria – « Dr Alf's Blog

  4. The Economist is clearly owned by warmongers and staffed by people without a brain cell between them.
    “Hit him hard”,3 options?

    In the first place Assad, left alone poses no threat to us and it is not in our national interest or anyone else’s to intervene.

    The price of oil and gold is rising so it benefits people who bought gold cheaply, it benefits Arab oil sheiks and it benefits oil traders and plutocrats who own oil shares.

    Hitting Assad hard destabilizes the Middle East, could tip us back into recession and will cost lives.
    The lives that will be lost will be of young fighting men, not politicians, not dictatorial oil sheiks, not oil traders and certainly not employees of the Economist who really ought to know better.

    In the hysteria being created by David Cameron and the ill informed debate in the House of Commons several things are being forgotten:

    –We do not yet know if Assad caused the Sarin gas attack, whether it was a false flag event, a trap or indeed who initiated it yet the Commons motion and all manner of people including BBC reporters are ASSUMING it was Assad.

    –David Cameron assumes that what Obama calls a “shot across the bows” is going to end there with Assad brought instantly to heel.

    Former General Dannatt, General Dempsey and other top military men do not think so, and history shows that they are more likely to be correct than the vacuous Cameron or Economist reporters who do not understand military matters or it seems human nature expressed in a man like Assad, who with his back to the wall will have no choice but to defend himself

    –Al Nusra the main rebel group are affiliated to Al Qaida who are our enemy and according to the Americans are the people who brought down the Twin Towers at 9/11,supposedly the reason for our “War on terror” in the first place.

    Is the Economist seriously suggesting that if we “Hit Assad hard” that the chemical weapons possessed by the Assad regime won’t fall into the hands of Al Nusra, bearing in mind we have “no plans for boots on the ground”?

    –How does the Economist think we are going to contain what will become a wider Middle East war if Assad, as he is entitled to do, tries to defend himself?

    –Has the Economist decision treed the effects of potential Russian and Chinese retaliation or what form it could take against Western interests or explained to its readers who will pay?

    Assuming we “Hit Assad hard” what will the Economist say if the casualties and inevitable “collateral damage” creates more casualties and deaths than the Sarin gas even assuming that Assad’s purported culpability and complicity can be proved?

    –What is Plan B, the strategic objective?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: