Editor: Re: (Humanitarian aid not enough, The Guardian, Sept. 26, 2013)
In his scathing refutation of John Keaveny’s article on Syria, Peter McKenna asks: “How many more people have to die before the John Keavenys of the world lift a finger to help?”
He goes on to say: “Yes, we may have to bomb in order to secure a peace because people like Bashar al-Assad don’t understand any other language. To think otherwise is just wishful thinking and moral irresponsibility.”
Well here’s one wishful thinker who feels that in light of the diversity of the many rebel groups operating in Syria, it’s difficult to say that the populace would be any better off if Bashar al-Assad were to lose the civil war in that ravished country.
To suggest that bombing would secure a peace is indeed wishful thinking and flies in the face of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles; and ignores what the Mideast backlash might entail if the west bombed another Muslim state.
The UN-backed agreement to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal that Russia and the U.S.A. have signed is the best hope for a start to a solution to Syria’s problems.
There’s a long iffy road ahead but thankfully, bombing is off the menu — at least for the present.
St. Patricks Road