U.S. inaction in Syria could be far more costly than intervention

0

The Post’s View

By Editorial Board

FROM THE beginning of the Syria crisis almost three years ago, the Obama administration has found reasons to remain aloof. Every option for U.S. involvement — arming moderate rebels, enforcing a no-fly zone, carving out humanitarian corridors — entailed risks. But every imperfect option for action must be weighed against the risks of inaction: What happens if the United States fails to help shape or contain a dangerous situation? In that framework, it’s instructive to look at just one day’s news from the region:

●Syrian government helicopters on Monday dropped “barrel bombs” on residential neighborhoods in the nation’s largest city, rebel-controlled Aleppo. The bombs “are typically packed with screws, scrap metal, old car parts, blades and explosives,” an activist told the Wall Street Journal. Scores of people were killed, including at least 28 children.

●In Geneva, the United Nations launched an appeal for a record-setting $6.5 billion to help Syrians who have lost their homes and livelihoods and are being starved by government forces. In a nation of 22 million people, 8 million are in need of humanitarian assistance, Valerie Amos, U.N. undersecretary general for humanitarian affairs, said.

“As we look towards the fourth year of this appalling crisis, its brutal impact on millions of Syrians is testing the capacity of the international community to respond,” Ms. Amos said.

Continue…

Comments are closed.

Share.

Discover more from Middle East Transparent

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading