Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
The reports are confused but it's clear that the security forces this morning opened fire this morning on funeral processions. Obama at least spoke quite clearly about it, no equivocating:
"Instead of listening to their own people, President Assad is blaming outsiders while seeking Iranian assistance in repressing Syria's citizens through the same brutal tactics that have been used by his Iranian allies," he said.
The Washington Post is pouring calumny on the Obama Administration's "shameful" inaction:
Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.
Fine with me if we withdraw the ambassador, introduce UN resolutions, and mount international investigations, but none of that is precisely "action," is it? And let's face it about real "action" at this point: Iran has already succeeded in establishing deterrence. To everyone who enabled that, congratulations.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Syria is the perfect example of where American influence is today. We either collaborate with NATO, UN or pick you internationalist organization, or we do absolutely nothing. Once a country loses the respect of it's adversaries, it has no viable options for anything outside it's own borders except to seek cover for it's failure.
The six year old, confronted by the bully for the first time, can usually establish limits with perhaps a small skirmish. After handing over the lunch money for a year or two, he either learns to run really fast, engage an epic battle, or continues giving over the lunch money and any subsequent humiliation he is required to endure.
May '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
The world without a superpower isn't going so well, thus far.
Jun '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
"it [Syria] supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel."
I think there's your difference right there. President Obama's (anti-Israel) foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, probably has a soft spot for Bashar that she didn't have for Muammar. In foreign policy, it's whoever has Obama's ear at the moment.
May '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Claire, is there a course of action you'd like to see? David Pryce-Jones argues, rightly I think, that Syria may be the key to how the whole region shakes out. The stakes are that high.
Sure would be nice to hail at least one turn of events as a true "Arab spring" and a boon to the West, without reservation. The developments in Syria seem the most likely candidate, and so bold, interventionist action might be justified. But what should it be?
Or is Iranian deterrence such that our hands are tied?
Aug '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Israel gets attacked by Obama for existing and defending itself from murderous assaults. Meanwhile, every anti-Israel nation in the world gets a pass from Obama even when they assault their own peaceful citizenry. Beneath contempt.
Oct '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
The Assad family are Alawi's, and not particularly well liked by their Shia masters in Iran. Allies, yes, but friends, no. Methinks that this is another move by the Islamists to co-opt an Arab country into the movement. The lack of opposition by the Obama administration should be self evident.
Jun '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Give the Obama administration about two more weeks, and they'll issue a public statement that Syria's actions are "really, really unacceptable, and we really mean it."
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Scott, giving a really intelligent answer to this question would require access to military and intelligence information that I just don't have. But clearly the risk of any kind of intervention is massive, and there's huge potential to make things dramatically worse. We have limited influence--sponsoring UN resolutions is pretty much a meaningless gesture, whatever the Washington Post thinks--and if anyone thinks a few surgical airstrikes would solve this problem, they're nuts.
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
We might be able to get diplomatic support though, now, for a serious sanctions squeeze. I don't think Asma al-Assad's going to be featured in a glossy spread in Vogue again anytime soon.
Jun '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Scott, giving a really intelligent answer to this question would require access to military and intelligence information that I just don't have. But clearly the risk of any kind of intervention is massive, and there's huge potential to make things dramatically worse. We have limited influence--sponsoring UN resolutions is pretty much a meaningless gesture, whatever the Washington Post thinks--and if anyone thinks a few surgical airstrikes would solve this problem, they're nuts. · Apr 23 at 8:05am
That's exactly why we should've stayed out of Libya. We know there will come higher cost--cost to us--operations (to save civilians) coming in the future, so by taking on Libya, and not taking on Syria, we've completely shown our hand, shown where the pain threshold (for us) is. Now, everyone knows (for certain) that it's not a moral decision--it's a cost/benefit analysis.
May '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Scott, giving a really intelligent answer to this question would require access to military and intelligence information that I just don't have. But clearly the risk of any kind of intervention is massive, and there's huge potential to make things dramatically worse. We have limited influence--sponsoring UN resolutions is pretty much a meaningless gesture, whatever the Washington Post thinks--and if anyone thinks a few surgical airstrikes would solve this problem, they're nuts. · Apr 23 at 8:05am
Thanks, and understood.
A glib recommendation would be to surgically airstrike the Syrian command (Assad himself, that is) on grounds that it's consistent with our stated "responsibility to protect". But glib it is, I know.
Sep '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Syria is a lot like Libya in my mind. I don't want US bombs in either place. I don't want ground troops in either place. Our rationales are so muddled with respect to these revolutions I don't think we have any real cause to act.
The administration is full of feckless weasels who are all bark, but in my view intervention in Syria will accomplish nothing. The next Syrian government will likely be no better disposed to the US than this one.
Unless of course we are just trying to foment chaos in the region. I don't think we are that devious.
Oct '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Why do we write as though the only actions we could have available to us is direct involvement? The answer is obvious. It is because the Obama administration has cut off all avenues of influence over what once were our friends and allies, and occasionally allies can be friends.
Israel could once make real trouble for Syria, but they are aware that they would be attacked by the US if they did anything. We once had the kind of influence over Jordan that could have meant trouble for Syria if we needed help. Iraq is heavily under our influence, but we would get no cooperation there. Turkey will not take any steps, again knowing that they would be on their own. Lebanon can do nothing. America can't even offer a few hundred million to any of these countries to harrumph against Syria.
So, in essence, we write as though there are no other options than to do this ourselves because that is really true.
Edited on Apr 23, 2011 at 8:57amMar '11
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
I am glad Mr Obama spoke quite clearly about this. Otherwise, we wouldn't have known that it is unacceptable for a Government to shoot it's Citizens.
Was he equally clear about all the other Governments killing their people (e.g. Iran)?
No doubt Samantha Power made it perfectly clear to Mr Obama that we have a "duty to protect", but it's not at all clear what that means.
He clearly thinks that we shouldn't have protected the Iraqi people from Saddam, so his position is bound to be totally incoherent.
Edited on Apr 23, 2011 at 9:45amNov '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
I don't understand why we bother to deal with these pathetic second-rate dictatorships in the same careful way we dealt with the Soviets. It's as if State actually believes the Syrians can do something to harm us. They can't! They don't have nukes. They can't mobilize a serious invasion force against any of their neighbors that we couldn't stop dead in its tracks from the air. All they can do is make a hash of the middle east through illicit arms trade and the like, which they're already doing. Forgive me, but we really need to grow a pair.
Am I wrong?
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
I think you're still thinking the Middle East is what it was five months ago. It's not. It's not even what it was five days ago. This is incredibly fluid.
Mar '11
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
It would be nice to think this is like the Soviet Union in the 90's (probably that's what Mr Obama and Ms Power think - twas a popular uprising, nothing to do with Reagan), but I think it's more like Iran in the late 70's, where the Marxists were quickly replaced by the Mullahs. Oh, and Russia ain't looking so good, now, either.
While the short-term details are fluid, the long-term trend towards the Islamists seems inevitable - but I may be pessimistic - I should stop reading Barry Rubin!
Oct '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
I think you're still thinking the Middle East is what it was five months ago. It's not. It's not even what it was five days ago. This is incredibly fluid. · Apr 23 at 10:09am
So very true. That is my point. Having cut off all avenues of influence that we once had, we are left with the Middle East that we have today. Which will continue it's slide away from civilized Western influence.
I once read a book about where this thing is going. It's called Revelations.
Feb '11
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
Let's assume the US did have a desire to intervene in Syria. Which side should we support? Druze, Kurds, the Lebanese militia, MBros, tribesman....
The regime will eventually fall, I should think, if only because those now seeking its downfall will die miserably if they fail. The fear of reprisals alone should be enough to see the matter through to the end.
What follows?
There are few reasons to be optimistic. There's nothing like Egypt's military to shepherd in a new Syria. Further, Syrian sectarians have their ethnic and religious allies to north, west, and south, all of whom want a say in Syria's future, so much so that they're already investing weapons and men in that future.
Perhaps the US should look for other ways to contribute to the welfare of the Syrians. Helping future refugees from the civil war might be a place to start. Start getting tents, water, food, and medical facilities set up near the border crossings, in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq.
Aug '10
Re: Syria Opens Fire on Mourners
The news papers reported some concept named " R2P" responsibility to protect. Unfortunately our starry eyed president git it backwards and thinks he should do yet another round as a "PR 2er". So back to the salons of San Fancisco. Every time Hillary, Madeline, or Samantha have gotten near military power, the results have been horrible. Vs. Maggie, Condi, and Jeane , but then we won all those.