Under the pretext of the opposition's dismantlement, the West is announcing its abstinence from interfering to halt the tragedy of the Syrian people. After Nicolas Sarkozy and David Cameron, who were the real sponsors for rescuing Libya from Muammar Gaddafi's regime, and after the secretary general of NATO, whose forces played a major part in protecting the Libyan rebels albeit by air, the US Military Chief, General Martin Dempsey, announced with no ambiguity that “Syria is not another Libya.” He then added: “I challenge anyone to clearly define the movement of the Syrian opposition at this point.” They are all demanding a political program and a work plan from the Syrian opposition for the post-Bashar al-Assad period. They all believe that there are several “oppositions” within the Syrian opposition. All this is correct and logical. The opposition itself admits its dismantlement, and needs to work harder on bringing together the real opponents of the regime (rather than those who are considered to be “opponents” by the regime) and on reassuring the internal and external arenas in the upcoming phase. However, there are doubts concerning the backdrop of the western positions vis-à-vis the regime and the opposition. These positions can be said to constitute a righteous demand carrying a wrongful intention. Is it not strange to impose this term on the Syrian opposition under the pretext that it is not unified? Everyone knows the nature of the dismantlement that existed within the Interim Council in Libya, and within the Libyan opposition between the Islamists and the people calling for a civil state, and even with some of the oppositionists who had previously collaborated with the regime. Nevertheless, these differences never prevented the political and military Western support to the Libyan opposition. Were it not for that support, Muammar Gaddafi would still be running the “Great Jamahiriya” until this day from Bab al-Aziziya. We all know this, and the West admits that the military capacities of the Syrian regime allow it to extend the confrontations for a long while, not to mention the Iranian and Russian support. The two countries have clearly expressed their keenness on the survival of this regime. This means that the Syrian regime is not fighting alone, while the opposition is left to tend to its own matters save for some financial support extended by Syrian businessmen living abroad. Furthermore, for its armament, the opposition only relies on smuggling operations in addition to the weapons that can be carried by the dissidents as they flee. Naturally, such weapons are merely limited to these members' individual weapons. In light of this major power imbalance, how can the Western countries expect then that the opposition would be capable of toppling the regime on its own? In addition, is it difficult to expect what could take place in Syria in case this regime manages to stay? Can one predict the extent of the killings and vindictive actions that would take place in that case? The events taking place today will seem like a picnic in comparison. The Tunisian and Egyptian armies played a major role in preventing the aspirations of their two peoples for freedom from turning into massacres under the regimes of Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak. The two armies thus served to prevent external intervention. Hence, these two revolutions gave birth to two new regimes without seeing the flow of blood that is being shed today in the streets of the Syrian cities, and Libya before that. But the Syrian army, including most of its officers and members, is an ideological army, whose first mission is to protect the regime. Its military culture is based on oppressing the people without any qualms if they once dare to disobey their leaders. Foreign intervention is not the best solution to end the Syrian tragedy. However, the circumstances of the confrontation assert, day after day, that without this confrontation, the tragedy will grow worse and the number of the dead will increase. It has now become clear that the alternative for the failure to interfere is to let Syria slip in the direction of a civil war. This is perhaps what the people who are refusing the intervention and the enemies of the Syrian population want. However, this is certainly not what the Syrians deserve.
