Judith Levy · May 2, 2011 at 6:14am

I don't mean to rain on the parade -- I'm as thrilled as anyone about the death of bin Laden -- but the Klieg lights have now swung away from Syria, and very bad stuff is still going down up there. Assad's security forces are now raiding cities all over the country, going house to house and arresting everyone. Daraa has been without food, water, electricity or fuel since last Monday and Assad's snipers are positioned on rooftops, trapping the population in their houses. The dead are going unburied. This is most assuredly a day for celebration for Americans and the civilized world, but it will serve Assad's interests for us to forget about him.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Tommy De Seno

Judith why do we attack Libya and not Syria?  Both are Middle Eastern.  Both have bad governments that are shooting their people.  Both have 5 letters in their name.

What's different?  Why does NATO/America attack one and not the other?   I'd love your thoughts.

AUMom
Joined
Jun '10
AUMom

I'm not forgetting. I hope Syria doesn't use this as cover for more atrocities. I do not trust Assad or Syria's best friend in the neighborhood, Iran.

Judith Levy
Tommy De Seno: Judith why do we attack Libya and not Syria?

Good question. I'm on record as saying the Americans should consider the removal of Assad a strategic goal, because of the opportunity it would present for isolating Iran. It would be a very risky proposition -- as is the case everywhere, we cannot say for certain who will arise to take the dictator's place -- but Syria is not by any means an Islamist walkover. Attacking Libya and turning a blind eye to what's going on Syria is both illogical and morally questionable, in my view.

Kervinlee
Joined
May '10
Kervinlee

Tommy De Seno: Judith why do we attack Libya and not Syria?  Both are Middle Eastern.  Both have bad governments that are shooting their people.  Both have 5 letters in their name.

What's different?  Why does NATO/America attack one and not the other?   I'd love your thoughts. · May 2 at 6:34am

Because our elected officials are idiots?

Ioannis
Joined
Mar '11
Ioannis

After Iraq and Afghanistan the US Administration (or the US public for that matter) has had no stomach for another military campaign that would involve having troops on the ground. Libya appeared easy since any ground fighting would be done by the rebels, with the US and NATO providing air and logistical support. Unfortunately this has not worked out that well but it's not a total bust either, at least not yet. And Syria does not even appear to have a domestic insurgency as organized or as committed or as capable as the one in Libya, that would be able to take over and retain a couple of important towns, basically an insurgency seen as a legitimate alternative to the Assad government. In the end, unlike Hungary in 1956 or Cuba in 1961, the US should not encourage rebels unless it is ready to back them up with actions, which, apparently, it is not. So now we change the discussion back to Bin Laddin.

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Exactly, thank you Judith .

I think Anna Wintour may have something to do with Syrian laissez faire.

So, that's one person in the US so far, and on the wrong side.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In