Yes to UT'S point about the international precedent (remember how Libya started playing nice after Saddam got the boot).
And Yes to PH45's article about the greater strategy - although it is a dangerous game to play. Still, what
is a good idea in this situation isn't clear to me.
However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power. With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?
Maybe if we could make SAMs that have GPS chips that track where they are are and disable themselves if they are used outside an approved war zone...
However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):
Quote:
|
In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.
|
Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?