Debates and special parliamentary sessions are heating up, as America and Russia are putting to test their super power or prowess over the verdict to penalize Assad regime with a military strike or stop the sarcastic war between the rebels and government forces.
Whether at the end of these numerous time-waiting sessions and endless debates, a war is declared upon the Assad regime or a diplomatic agreement is reached between the West and America on one side and the Syrian government and Russia on the other, there is need to act.
It is time to act quickly so as to save the majority of the Syrian population trapped in this violence conflict.
With the Syrian government now willing to cooperate by handing over its chemical weapons to Russia so as to avoid any standoff with the West, it is realistic that Chemical weapons were used in the fighting as well as against Syrians.
Who used them, why and when; it was totally wrong and was against international laws of contemporary armed conflicts.
However, although for every wrong, there is right and for every crime there is a penalty, the decision to either strike or save Syria takes us back to the Anglo-Saxon legal dictum that hard cases make bad law.
It is easy to think of punishment by military actions, but the consequences and cost apparently are far enormous and costly than that of stopping the war and savaging the wreckage, of what is left today of the country and its disillusioned people.
The world would even be angrier if any strike goes ahead than being burdened to donate if any good-will ambassador instead opted for a massive campaign to stop the war and save the country from all the atrocities of Assad and the fighting rebel groups.
Mali’s approach for Syria
Think of Syria, reflect back on the case of Mali, which France took the bold step to step in and end the conflict by fighting the extremists within the rebels and striving for dialogue and the need to return to democracy and development.
In Mali, the rebels were capable of crushing the poorly paid and under-equipped Mali army, but because the African Union and some Western countries quickly condemned the move, their advancement towards the capital, Bamako was delayed and abandoned.
In Syria it is complicated to say whether the government or the rebels are losing or winning the battle that is far from over.
With the rebels masked and fortified by foreign fighters and unable to overthrow Assad, both sides have instead restored to sabotage – destroying the country, its people and even themselves.
Attempts by some Western powers to instead arm or provide weaponry and warfare knowledge to the rebels so as to oust Assad met lots of resistance, especially from Russia, as doubt was cast on whose hands these weapons might end up like the example of Libya after Gaddafi.
At the time, when the world is also struggling with the global economic recession, war is the last option anyone would want to support at the moment.
Even the Western nations that are debating on the situation on Syria are all struggling to provide enough employment or funds to their own citizens and the growing number of immigrants.
The European Union and its member countries are still struggling with the Euro-zone crisis, which has been rocking most countries and the union as bailouts are not bringing in the expected results.
Across to America, the financial crisis might be on another wavelength, but with the crisis in the Euro-zone the dollars is also affected so too is the American economy.
Going to war, means more money that would have been used at home would instead be transferred for the fighting troops and the rest for their transport, equipment and maintenance on the battlefield.
Assad needs punishment for his alleged crimes against humanity, but it is left for those who hold the supposed superpower to decide.
However, not going to war is not a sign of weakness on the part of the offender or a defeat by the aggressor, but rather a win-all for both parties simply for the sake of peace and mutual understanding.