The conflict in Syria has been largely veiled thanks to the upheaval in Libya, but an estimated 2,200 dead according to United Nations estimates. Opposition forces are pinning their hopes on an international intervention that has been slow in coming. The European Union and U.S. have imposed sanctions, while the EU is set to impose a ban upon Syrian oil entering European markets.
At this time, though the international community does not appear willing to perform an operation like the one that has helped remove Gaddafi in Libya at this time. Perhaps this is because the two largest cities in Syria: Damascus and Aleppo haven’t joined the protests and the merchant class has remained uncommitted to either side. Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/0901/Can-Syria-avoid-civil-war
Given these two pieces of information, I cannot advocate a Western military intervention in Syria, no matter how much the bloodshed in the streets saddens me. The two largest cities in Syria house half the population of the country. If they are not involved to a large extent, than we can’t say that Assad has lost the right to rule over his people, the way Gaddafi had. Just because Assad is a bad guy is not a reason to overthrow him. Every president has gone to the American people and outlined a case for why military action was necessary against ________________.
I just don’t see how we can build such a case when at least half the country is sitting on the sideline. Situations change quickly though, so I could easily change my mind, but as long as the majority stand silent, I don’t see any good choices here.