Contrary to Theresa May ’s Comments, the West Is Interfering in Syria’s Civil War

Shortly after the air and missile strikes that U.S., British and French forces launched against the Syrian government ’s alleged chemical weapons sites, British Prime Minister Theresa Mayinsisted that the goal simply was to degrade the ability of Bashar-al Assad ’s regime to use such weapons in the future and to bolster the longstanding international taboo. “These strikes are about deterring the barbaric use of chemical weapons in Syria and beyond.” May stressed: “This was not about interfering in a civil war.  And it was not about regime change.”Her comment simply lacks credibility. There is no such thing as a neutral military intervention by outside powers. Even if the intervenors do not intend to affect the wider political context, the act of attacking one party in a civil war automatically works to the disadvantage of that party and strengthens the position of its adversaries. President George H. W. Bush ’s deployment of U.S. troops in Somalia in late 1992 did not seem to have an underlying geopolitical purpose. The situation in that fractured country was indeed dire, with tens of thousands of people already starving. Washington’s relief effort aimed at using the U.S. military to distribute food and take other measures to ease the widespread suffering. It fit the definition of a truly humanitarian military mission.Nevertheless, the moment U.S. troops arrived, theyinevitably began to affect the balance of power among the contending militias. Some of those ...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs