Going Forward?

"We share the view of our allies, I think, based on the evidence that's before us that there have been uses of chemical weapons in Syria by the regime.
"Our assistance to this point in time has obviously been humanitarian in nature, rather than military in nature. We are obviously working very closely with our allies. We share, broadly speaking, an analysis of objectives.
"I think our concerns about the risks on both sides are shared also by our allies and we will work very closely with them going forward."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Canada has experienced working with its allies in NATO. When a no-fly zone was established with the blessing of the United Nations in Libya, Canadian warplanes flew surveillance and bombing missions. Declaring their part in the conflict that removed Moammar Ghadaffi from power, enabling Libya to exercise its passage to democratic rule a success. Only to see the legitimate government that took power falter and creep toward democracy while the rebels kept their arms and morphed into terror groups themselves.

And this issue, the provision of arms to Syrian rebels to level the battlefield between them and the well-armed regime receiving seasoned boots on the ground and weapons both from Iran, its Republican Guard and its proxy militia Hezbollah is one that has been experienced by the West time and again. The lesson was given but not learned in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and repeated in Libya.

And it is obvious enough that with the influx of battle-hardened jihadists from Tunisia, Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya and Afghanistan, arming of the rebels will translate to arming Islamist extremists by default. The United States must live up to the words of its president who famously uttered a commitment relating to crossing 'red lines'. Which Syrian President Bashar al Assad did, casually, on a number of occasions, with the use of chemical weapons against both civilians and rebels.

France and Britain are both seemingly eager enough to involve themselves in yet another Middle East conflict. There are so many Middle East conflicts, one cannot help but wonder why the Middle East does not exert itself to put out its own fires? Particularly when, as the United States always responds and becomes embroiled and sucked in further than it had intended by the very nature of such conflicts, it is also upbraided and scorned for interference in Middle East affairs by the very countries that yearn for it to intervene.

Syria's conflict, however, has built even further upon the sectarian antipathies and mass violence that Iraq experienced. The violence is more prevalent, extreme and ongoing. The chasm between the two main branches of Islam has turned into an impassable gorge of hatred and vitriol, violence and mass slaughter. Clerics on both sides of that divide have exhorted to jihad through fatwas that must be responded to. Egypt, warming to Iran latterly, now has renounced diplomatic ties with Syria. Jordan has announced it will fight rather than allow its security to be violently compromised by Syria.

President Obama has authorized the shipping of weapons to the rebels - exclusive of anti-tank and ballistic missiles. Claiming that it has put into place a protocol whereby it will monitor who ends up with the arms they provide. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are content with the growing divide in the Sunni world with Shia Iran. Russia remains adamant that the West should remain uninvolved, and resists the American thrust to arm the rebels -- while the Kremlin remains committed to arming Syria.

Complex and uncertain the outcome most certainly is.