Much has been made of the announcement that the Obama administration is finally going to provide direct assistance to the rebels in Syria. Secretary of State John Kerry vowed not to leave the rebels, who have been fighting against a murderous regime for two years, “dangling in the wind.” Indeed, the Syrian opposition has been so disappointed by the lack of international support that it announced a boycott of Thursday’s international meeting on Syria. It took a phone call from Kerry — and a promise of more aid — to convince Syrian National Coalition President Moaz al-Khatib to come.
Khatib showed up. But the aid package that Kerry unveiled must have been a bitter disappointment: $60 million in nonlethal assistance to the civilian opposition, along with some ready-to-eat meals and medical supplies for rebel soldiers. That is no match for the heavy weaponry that Russia and Iran are sending to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. The US gift will not even come in the form of cash, but rather in-kind donations. One State Department official said the aid would include “anything from radios for local police to schoolbooks that you’re trying to buy for kids.” At a time when missiles are being aimed at civilians, and 70,000 have been killed, that kind of aid sounds absurd. Mohammad Sarmini, a spokesman for the Syrian National Council, called it “embarrassing.” Syrian civilians need a humanitarian corridor or a no-fly zone, not schoolbooks. Pretending otherwise may play well for the American public, but it doesn’t fool anyone in Syria.
Comments
The aftermath of Arab spring in Egypt and aftermath of the uprising in Libya show the stupidity of getting in Arab politics, particularly when we no longer nees their oil.
The resistance to Assad's regime may be unsuccessful because not enough of the population is engaged in his removal. If opposing forces to Assad waked his own military, this civil war might end. There are plenty of weapons and weapon caches esconsed in Syria to fight wars many times over. For too many years the population of Syria tolerated and mostly supported the current regime. When the Alowite leader ventured into territory he had no business being there, not a peep from his countrymen that they were heaping suffering on a contiguous nation. Until a force representing a majority or better of Syria shows itself, the United States should not interfere. Once hostilities end aid and some semblance of peace restored, then aid can be offered. No peace is assured by fighting. Peace comes with the cessation of a war. We have examples. WWI produced WWII because of failure to act on this principle. The aftermath of WWII via the Marshall Plan produced a state of lasting civil order.
Of course, the fact that the government tortured anyone who critized it and that there was not a free press might have had something to do with how much public opposition there was to alwad and his predecessor. Not to mention that the government's survivng might have something to do with the fact that it has bomber/fighter jets and attack heliocopters while the people have assault rifles and homemade bombs.
By the way, you need a history lesson. WWII did not result in peace. It produced the british invasion of greece, the chinese civil war and then the korean war. That led to several wars in the mid-east and the amerikan invasion of souteast asia. But lets not split hair.
Is this the "flexibility" Obama meant?
yet another Arab war we are getting involved in. why on earth. where are we getting the money to pay for this. ? we borrow from china to send aid
Sequester - $60m...it's a start...our troops shouldn't be forced into a civil war or our money...no matter the outcome, the new regime will hate America while spending our money.
Non-lethal aid is appropriate until we're sure that the opposition won't be dominated by Islamists.