BLOODLESS OPTION: Troops from Islamic countries, including Malaysia, will establish order in the country
THE world has been discussing for days whether Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad used chemical weapons. It is becoming increasingly clear that he did. More important, however, is the absolute destruction that has gone on for the last three years and, even more surprisingly, that much of the world has remained silent in the face of it.
This silent element is apparently not troubled by people being killed and is unconcerned by which weapons they are killed with. These are people who never turn to look at Syria even once, as almost nothing is left standing in the country, as millions of people are living as refugees in neighbouring countries, as murder and torture become an every day part of life and as, according to United Nations reports, more than 100,000 people have died.
We must not forget that a military intervention, especially a narrow and limited action, will not solve anything in Syria. What needs to be performed first is a rescue operation, and for the funds set aside for war to be directed to supporting the refugees.
Millions of dollars spent on ships, missiles, jets and bombs could be spent on rescuing the Syrian people and settling them in neighbouring countries. That rescue is essential to stop even one person from being harmed.
On the other hand, an American military intervention would probably cause even more pain. We need to see that the regime in Syria slaughters its own people without compunction, and that this regime has been bombing its own territory on an almost daily basis for the last three years. Now the United States coming in and raining bombs down on Syria will change nothing. The main aim in Syria, where hundreds of people are dying by the day, must be to stop the killing, not to punish Assad.
If the price of punishment is to be the deaths of civilians yet again, then nobody of good conscience and common sense can back it. Therefore, the wickedness in Syria must be stopped in such a way that not another single person is additionally harmed. There are two basic issues in Syria: the first is stopping the killings by the Ba'ath regime.
The second is the building of a Syria that supports peace and tranquillity in the wake of that evil. Both can only be realised through intervention by Islamic countries.
Although the US emphasises that it has no such intention, it will be perceived as an invading power by many groups in the region and will encounter some reaction. Moreover, the limited intervention it would make will not be enough to weaken Assad.
Scores of groups are active in Syria, with new ones springing up regularly, and it does not seem possible for the US to reconcile these and establish order.
However, if Islamic countries act together, this can all easily be established. A battalion of troops can be taken from a large numbers of countries -- such as Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Qatar and Saudi Arabia and, most essentially from Iran -- and a kind of Islamic peace force can be set up very quickly.
It will be easy to put an end to the killing by entering Syria from 70 points. This force, supported by the US, the European Union and particularly Russia, can quickly ensure pacification in Syria.
This union made up of troops from Islamic countries will act as a peace force and enter Syria to protect the civilian population, not to wage war. The tanks will roll forward to establish peace, not to fire shells.
The Muslim population will feel secure since the advancing troops are themselves Muslims and will welcome those Muslim troops with joy. Since Iran will be part of this union, sectarian clashes can easily be prevented, and since Russia also supports it, the regime's forces will quickly surrender.
The order to be established once the bloodshed has been stopped must be a system equally represented by people of all sects, all faiths and all ideas.
All groups must abide by God's command in the Quran that "it is better for you to forgive" and contribute to the establishment of a democratic Syria.
No matter how accurate the bombs and missiles may be, it is inevitable that there will be civilian casualties. What is the logic behind preferring such a bloody solution when we have a decent, kind, and bloodless one available that is compatible with the Quran?
Adnan Oktar's article published on New Straits Time on September 12th, 2013: