For months we have been hearing prominent Americans from media pundits to President Obama promising that Bashar Assad’s Syrian tyranny was on its way out. Most of this optimism was based on a faulty understanding of the grip that the Assad clan and its Alawite allies have on the Syrian military and security services as well as a misapprehension about what constitutes the tipping point in toppling despotic regimes.
But as Assad’s forces expand their bloodthirsty crackdowns to other cities in the country after squelching the opposition in the north, it is also fair to point out that he is only getting away with this because neither President Obama and the European Union nor the Arab League which professes to be horrified by these atrocities is willing to lift a finger to stop him. Thousands have already been slaughtered and thousands more thrust into Syrian dungeons where they are being tortured by the regime. But all these people have gotten from the West are empty words such as those uttered by the president on the subject.
It needs to be re-emphasized that the difference between what is going on in Syria and what happened in Tunisia and Egypt last year is that unlike the heads of those regimes, the ruler of Damascus hasn’t lost his willingness to kill in order to hold onto power. It is an iron rule of history that such governments only fall when, as in the French Revolution, the collapse of the Shah’s regime in Iran or the end of the Soviet Union, the elites in power are no longer able to summon the will to violently suppress dissent. So long as Assad hasn’t lost his taste for blood — and he obviously hasn’t — he won’t be heading for the exits.
That means if the West really cares about the wholesale slaughter going on in Syria, it is going to have to do something whether it means arming and/or training the rebels or authorizing some sort of international intervention.
Getting into a conflict, even a limited one, in Syria is something that any administration, let alone one facing re-election would be reluctant to do. But given the scale of the suffering in Syria, President Obama needs to understand that if he wants his rhetoric about human rights to have any credibility, he’s going to have show some real leadership. But given the Obama administration’s predilection for “leading from behind” as well as its obvious lack of interest in doing anything more than talk about Syria and its Iranian ally, Assad’s victims shouldn’t expect help from America anytime in the foreseeable future.
This apathy has wide consequences, especially in Israel. Do you think that it escapes any Israeli's eyes that Obama is not lifting a finger to save people and bring down an enemy regime? All Israelis will draw the lesson that one better look out for oneself and not trust Obama one iota.
As heartbreaking as it is to see innocents mutilated and murdered, the atrocities are no worse than darfur/sudan, and no worse than what goes on in Iran on a slow motion basis. n nStill, there are lessons here. The first is that it becomes obvious that in American decision making (obama's team), humanitarian principles do not motivate actions, despite the cringe inducing speechifying by the President. Even practical 'realpolitik' doesn;t, as it is a no brainer that depriving Iran of SYria would aid American strategic interests. Only the basest political calculations (even those often wrong) underpin actions. n nA second lesson is that the rest of the world is worthless as a force willing and able to stop gross crimes against against humanity. But this we already knew. Catherine Ashton is as worthless as she is homely. Koffi Annan in female form. n nThe third lesson is as you stated, and is being absorbed well by Israel no doubt. They will not be able to count on either the world or the USA when the chips are down and the onslaught is upon them. Better to stick to their knitting, and do what they have always done. Be proactively defensive, and rely as much as they can upon themselves.
Assad is good for the Christians. They are in deep trouble if he is overthrown. We need to stay out of this fight. Neither side is worthy of our support. Assad is probably the lesser of evils.
Assad good for the Christians? Since when? The untold tragedy that will be mourned decades from now, is how the Christian West turned its back on their co-religionists in The Arab Middle East. Shame on France, the Vatican and all of their so-called protectors. And irony of ironies, the one country where Christians feel safe and can worship freely is..israel!!
It is my understanding that Syria's Christians are not supporting the rebels. They live there, we do not. Perhaps they have a clearer understanding of what is going on. I do not believe Egypt's Coptic Christians are happy with the outcome of the fall of Mubarak's regime.
What a minute. The heirs of the Mubarak overthrow just declared from Parliament that Israel is Egypt's number one enemy and that gas sales to Israel should be stopped and the Israeli ambassador expelled. We heard all this before way back in the Arab Spring of Tahir Square and what we ended up with is a military council cum junta the thin reed preventing the Muslim Brotherhood-Salafist dynamic from Islamic calliope meltdown. Life is suffering.
Well it's hard to imagine a Syria more against us than is currently due to its current Iranian alignment. n nAs well, this is a great excuse (because it is actually a worthy cause, and of considerable strategic interest) to intervene in Syria, and to have influence of a sort that, more than externally constrains it, actually penetrates it. (It'd also be a way for the US to establish some credibility when threatening force.) n nIt'd also help the upcoming Israeli strike against Iran, making the aftermath of such a strike much more pleasant.
We have been in Afghanistan for 10 years and it is an open question as to what has been achieved by our stay. The locals aren't happy and are currently demonstrating against "infidels" while the Talibans gather strength. Israel intervened in Lebanon covertly 1976-1977 and then overtly in 1978 and stayed until about 2000, first against the PLO, then Hezbollah and has had several military incursions since to diminishing effect. Hezbollah is in great shape. The counter argument might be that a decisive strike against Syria could work and even roll back Hezbollah but I'm not personally optimistic.
If you are wondering how Obama would act if Israel were attacked, this is it. r nIt is instructive as to what The United States under the former community organizer, member in good standing of The Church of Reverand Wright, comrade in arms of Weatherman Underground Terrorist Ayres and pen pal of the Anti-Jewish Anti-Israel and Anti-American ruler of Turkey, would instruct American Armed Forces and NATO should Israel find itself under attack from all sides. If Obama sent any arms lifts they would probably be token ones, if any. I would guess Israel could expect a ship load of Spam.r n Jonathan Tobin, sir, could you please evaluate the two Republican candidates Santorum and Romney, with respect to their reliability to improve relations with Israel after The Obama Disaster.
the israeli withdrawal from lebanon has been proven to be a mistake. Since that time, hezbollah has controlled lebanon and is a constant danger to israel. Have you forgotten the war in lebanon in 2006? it is true that indigenous people don't necessarily like outsiders coming in and controlling their country- but it is a lot better than being raped and killed by their own army..
Human rights blah blah blah democracy blah blah blah intervention blah blah blah. This is the sound of bloody folly since the days of the fool Wilson. If the US has a dog in that fight, it is the Syrian Christians, who support Assad. Let's keep our powder dry and mind our own business for once..
If you could provide some slight assurance that the replacement regime in Syria would be an improvement over Assad, maybe I'd agree that some amount of U.S. effort should be expended in assisting those looking to overthrow the current despot. However, there has been no evidence thusfar that the so-called "Arab Spring" has enhanced U.S. security one iota (in fact the opposite could be argued), and there is no reason to believe this would be any different. Sometimes its just best to leave well enough alone.
Syria is the foremost-nay, the only- ally that Iran has in the Middle East. The fall of the Assad regime would be a master strategic stroke and would weaken Iran immeasurably. Any fool can see this. And you don't even have to send troops -just arm the rebels and some air strikes- a la Libya. But Obama dithers and fiddles while the world burns. The lesson is clear- do not trust Obama's words ("I do not bluff", " I have israel's back",etc.)for one solitary second. Let's hope this nightmare of a President is retired in November.
After a bloody civil war, a couple of thousand dead and maimed Americans, and another trillion dollars of money borrowed from China, a Muslim Brotherhood government to match the one in Egypt. Millions of Syrian Christians flee to the US. Alawites slaughtered. n nOr maybe a partition of the place into an Alawite-Christian rump state along the coast, a Kurdish enclave in the north, and a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated entity in the center, nursing its xenophobia and grievances. n nBe careful what you wish for. It can get worse than it is.
In the Arab world there are two choices: Stalinism and anarchy. Pick one. There’s no third option. So aiding or not aiding Syria leads to one of those two.
Maintaining chaos is perhaps the best possible outcome. Because in the Arab world there are two options; Stalinism and anarchy. You can pick one but eventually you get both. So it's possible that the best long run option for everyone involved is chaos. Neither full fledged anarchy and civil war nor a brutal police state.