Diplomacy or military intervention in Syria? 7 opinions from around the globe.

Diplomacy not the answer

The Philadelphia Inquirer
Column, Trudy Rubin
Annan's plan for Syria is dead; Washington needs a Plan B

Even as Syria devolves into ever greater violence, some argue that the international community must deliver arms to those who are battling Assad. The US and others have been reluctant do this, especially as they are not always sure whom they might be arming, and what kind of state might follow Assad’s regime. Still, Writing in the Philadelphia  Inquirer, columnist and editorial board member Trudy Rubin says what’s needed is a “reality check” – and actions backed up by weapons.

“[H]ere's the sad truth: Even though an unchecked civil war will devastate civilians, attract radical jihadis, and destabilize the entire region, diplomacy won't prevent this...."

Washington could channel funds into Syria to help “responsible fighting groups...set up organizational structures – like provincial military councils.... A more proactive strategy might convince Syrians – and [Russian President] Putin – that Washington is serious about wanting Assad gone.... The Annan plan was Plan A, and it's over. It's time for the White House to adopt Plan B.”

3 of 7

Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story