THE very idea that arming an insurrectionist movement that has demonstrated not one iota of humanitarianism itself, constitutes some kind of humanitarian intervention, is beyond the absurd (your report, 7 March).
Foreign Secretary William Hague’s pronouncements on what Syria is badly in need of can simply be dismissed as comprising what Syria has no need of whatsoever.
Saying he has ordered more active efforts after securing a relaxation of a European Union arms embargo to allow the provision of non-lethal military equipment to protect civilians, and that armoured vehicles are part of this, is unlikely to persuade anyone of peaceful intentions.
One reason in my opinion why the Syrian insurrection has continued is because it has been actively encouraged by non- Syrian interests that have nothing to do with anything that even hints of humanitarianism.
The whole thing has, however, a large and unmistakable hint of pre-Iraq weapons of mass destruction misinformation about it. And a looming pre-textual process of military violation of yet another country’s sovereignty.
And this from a nation, Britain, severely reducing its own military personnel too – is there any logic in any of this?