Skip to footer

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

Diplomacy not the answer

  • By Whitney Eulich Staff writer

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
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.