Syrian Scramble

Like most of you, it’s hard for me to watch nightly TV pictures of a mechanized army killing civilians at an ever-increasing rate. For those of you with a sense of history, it’s awfully reminiscent of the Warsaw Ghetto.

But what are we going to do about it? We already have too many boots on too many grounds. Bombing? That’s OK, except this isn’t Berlin, Baghdad, or Belgrade. Drones? Now there’s a possibility. Drone vs. tank is more than fair.

One commentator was critical of the U.S. for even bothering with the U.N. – he says we should have known that Russia and China were going for a veto, and that it was a waste of time. I disagree – the U.N. was a base we had to touch, and now that we’ve rounded it, we’re free to pursue other options – but what?

Syria isn’t Libya. It’s not all about one ruling family. Unlike Libya, Syria has a business community that doesn’t want the boat rocked. It’s about money. Analysts say the Russians have lost billions in potential weapons sales during the Arab spring. They also want a port on the Mediterranean, available to them in Syria. And then there are the Chinese, and, of course, Iran. Can we deal with Syria without having to deal with the rest of them?

CNN commentator and Stanford fellow Fouad Ajami has what seems like a practical idea: Supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons and let them at least fight the regime on a leveler playing field. The regime is getting its weapons from others. This kind of assistance is nothing new -- remember Lend-Lease during the early days of World War II?

Will many more have to die? Undoubtedly, but personally, I’d rather see them die defending themselves than simply being slaughtered. I’d be curious to find out how much of a stomach the regular Syrian army would have for supporting the regime if they had credible military opposition.

At some point, this situation, at least for the United States, has to go beyond its current status as a nightly cable-news outrage festival.