A rather weird OpEd in the New York Times argues for a military "responsibility-to-protect" intervention to provide "human corridors" to allegedly starving Syrians:
If Russia blocks meaningful international action, and if the Assad regime or any rebel group refuses to allow humanitarian aid into the besieged areas, the sieges must be broken by any means necessary.
We should invoke the Responsibility to Protect, the principle that if a state fails to protect its populations from mass atrocities — or is in fact the perpetrator of such crimes — the international community must step in to protect the victims, with the collective use of force authorized by the Security Council. And if a multinational force cannot be assembled, then at least some countries should step up and organize Syria’s democratically oriented rebel groups to provide the necessary force on the ground, with air cover from participating nations.
So if Russia and China block a Security Council resolution there must be an R2P Security Council resolution which Russia and China would block making any further action obviously illigeal. Then some countries could illegally use military forces to help the no-existing "democratically oriented rebel groups" to provide whatever.
The once blocked Yarmouk Palestinian camp has been cleared from fighters against the government and is back under Palestinian and government control. Nearly half of the 2,000 civilians in a small area within Homs city that was under siege and that also holds several thousand of fighters have left the area. The next big areas which are under siege and in need of relief are the 50,000 people in the Shia towns al-Zahraa and Nubl. They are besieged by insurgents. Are we to believe that "democratically oriented rebel groups" will provide for them? And which country would be crazy enough to send its military to Syria to receive the wrath not only of the Syrian and Russian governments but also of the al-Qaeda oriented jihadis?
Compared to that nonsense the main editorial in today's NYT makes nearly makes sense:
[A] political solution is not out of the question if some right choices are made. The United States, for one, should drop its opposition to including Iran, which supplies arms and other assistance to Mr. Assad, in the negotiations. Russia, another weapons supplier, could send a powerful message to Mr. Assad by suspending its arms deliveries. Saudi Arabia and Qatar could send the same message to Mr. Assad’s opposition by ending weapons deliveries to the rebels. And Turkey could close its border to the foreign fighters that have turned Syria into a cauldron of extremist elements that threaten the entire region.
That is more realistic position than the so far uttered ones in the U.S. editorial world. But isn't it funny that it doesn't mention Jordan where the U.S. trains insurgents, provides them with weapons and then send them off to fight in Syria. Should that, in the mind of the NYT editors, continue?
Interestingly president Obama picked up one issue from that editorial today. In a press confernece with the French president Hollande Obama called on the international community to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Syria.
Was that directed at the Saudis and Turkey?