No Military Intervention in Syria, Says Top NATO General
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
NATO does not believe that military intervention in Syria would bring any improvement in the security situation there, a senior alliance official said Friday.
Germany's Manfred Lange, Chief of Staff of Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), said the military was telling leaders that there was no good case for military action and the political process had to be pursued.
"The military advice is (that) there are not sufficient visible signs at the moment that a military intervention could lead to an improvement of the security situation," Lange said.
"The political process has to be pushed forward, sanctions need to take effect. At the moment, this situation cannot be solved by the military in a responsible way," he told a briefing.
He added that with little prospect of action at the United Nations "it is clear that the Alliance doesn't have any military plans on Syria."
NATO concluded a seven-month air campaign in Libya last year which helped rebels oust veteran leader Moammar Gadhafi and there has been speculation such an operation could be repeated in Syria if U.N. approval was obtained.
Permanent U.N. Security Council members Russia and China oppose any such intervention even as the death toll mounts steadily in Syria where rebels are trying to topple President Bashar Assad.
21 September 2012, 20:44
11
@ the1phoenix
Indeed I too have experienced what you describe in your comment and agonized with the rest of us. Though the mechanics is the same, the situation in Syria now is fundamentally different. While it is true that there is a sectarian dimension to their civil war like there was in Lebanon, in Syria today the dominant issue is that which ignited the Arab Spring namely the dictatorial nature of their regime. Another important dimension, that IMHO is being manipulated and totally misused by the Arabs, is the fact that a 10-12% minority (Alawite) is ruling by diktat over a majority (Sunni) population. By far a much more lopsided ratio than in Iraq or Lebanon.
21 September 2012, 20:49
11
... continue
The West needs to move and move fast, much faster than they have been to date, if they hope to win the hearts and souls of the Syrians and the Arabs (read Sunnis). Muslims in general, and I will probably be thumbed down for this, as a populace have not yet attained the level of realization the Christian West has reached namely the separation of Church and State as well as letting go of in-fighting based on sect. The Shiites (Iran) are fervently trying to obtain a Shiite nuclear capability to balance the Sunnis' one.
21 September 2012, 20:57
01
... continue
While having any race or sect obtaining nuclear know how is ok in principle, allowing that know how to fall in the hands and be under the control of religious zealots is a frightening prospect. How can one negotiate or trust rulers who believe that their actions come from and are blessed by God the almighty?
By hastening the demise of the Syrian regime, with more action in addition to words, the West will gain the side benefit of weakening Iran in addition to the gratitude of the majority of the Arab world. By not acting the West will be committing an unforgivable blunder that they will paying for for years to come. The hope is that the US - without which no Western nation will venture anything, will change its policy after the US election no matter who wins. BTW, so far Obama appears slated to win a second term.
22 September 2012, 05:05
01
Let them fight each other some more, then NATO will have an easier task intervening, plus global companies will walk in picking up reconstruction contracts left and right and Syria will be indebted to the WEST for the next 25 years!!
My main concern is the social and human after effect of war on the whole region...and specifically on Lebanon.
22 September 2012, 14:10
00
of course no intervention... this would affect israeli peace. no more army to protect the golan heights!
bashar is the best ally of israel....
