According to an unverified report on Defense Tech, the Syrian government was forced to bomb its own surface to air missile site after the Syrian opposition, with the help of Syrian army defectors, took over the site.
As mideast expert Daniel Pipes compellingly argues, no matter how brutal the Syrian civil war
Western states have no dog in this fight.
Generalized humanitarian concerns face problems of veracity, feasibility, and consequence. Anti-regime insurgents, who are gaining on the battlefield, appear responsible for at least some atrocities. Western electorates may not accept the blood and treasure required for humanitarian intervention. It must succeed quickly, say within a year. The successor government may (as in the Libyan case) turn out even worse than the existing totalitarianism. Together, these factors argue compellingly against humanitarian intervention.
In addition, he continues, there are some benefits to the rest of the world to the continued fighting in Syria.
- It lessens the chances of Damascus from starting a war with Israel or re-occupying Lebanon.
- It increases the chances that Iranians, living under the thumb of the mullahs who are Assad's key ally, will draw inspiration from the Syrian uprising and likewise rebel against their rulers.
- It inspires greater Sunni Arab anger at Tehran, especially as the Islamic Republic of Iran has been providing arms, finance, and technology to help repress Syrians.
- It relieves the pressure on non-Muslims: indicative of the new thinking, Jordanian Salafi leader Abou Mohamad Tahawi recently stated that "The Alawi and Shi'i coalition is currently the biggest threat to Sunnis, even more than the Israelis."
- It foments Middle Eastern rage at Moscow and Beijing for supporting the Assad regime.
Well, that does seem advantageous.
So as we watch the horror and see the UN and other government officials huff and puff futilely trying to stop the slaughter we must, as Pipes put it, "place a priority on our own security." And that means staying out of it.