Discovering MENA and other thoughts

While  two weeks ago  Western intervention in Syria seemed imminent , today it merely stands as the second track  after the  diplomatic option both the US, Russia and Syria have embraced . This situation has lead many, including me, to draw parallels that somehow justify or refute the usefulness of an attack on the Syrian regime, the most likely comparisons being drawn with Iraq, Libya and Kosovo.  I hereby point out the major differences that make such comparisons unfeasible and even dangerous. 

In addressing the debate on the pros and cons of foreign intervention in Syria, there are many parallels that might be found between the Syrian situation and the dilemma faced several Western powers before the Spanish Civil War. George Orwell said that " the outcome of the war in Spain was decided outside of the country and one year afterwards, any realistic observer knew that the democratic government would not be able to win unless there was a radical change in the European situation. " The picture was complicated: firstly most states clung to the need to appease Hitler's Germany, and at the same time, many had mixed feelings regarding the communist forces. Paradoxically, the ultimate goal was to avoid a general war in Europe with, like the Spanish war and the Syrian conflict, deeply ideological roots. The position of the international community in the conflict was finally based on the non-intervention principle, but this postulate was openly mocked by Nazi Germany...