Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
Like Libya, they too are the in the middle of a civil war. From today's Financial Times:
Pro-democracy protests swept across Syria on Friday in the wake of a crackdown in the southern city of Deraa, in spite of President Bashar al-Assad’s promises of new freedoms and pay increases.
About 1,000 people took part in a rally in the town of Tel, just north of the capital Damascus, in support of the Deraa protesters at least 44 of whom were killed in the police crackdown on Wednesday.
Okay, okay. So it's not much of a civil war. Yet.
But it could be, couldn't it? With the right support and encouragement? And isn't regime change in Syria a lot more useful to us, a lot more aligned with our national interests than, say, regime change in Libya?
Feckless Obama response here, from today's NYTimes:
On Thursday, the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, issued a statement condemning what he called “the Syrian government’s brutal repression of demonstrations, in particular the violence and killings of civilians at the hands of security forces.”
The Obama administration said that it was watching to see if Mr. Assad would follow through with the promises made Thursday.
“Words are words,” Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman, told reporters. “We’ll obviously look for action.”
He added, “We were, and obviously remain, deeply troubled by the violence and civilian deaths, especially in Dara’a, at the hands of security forces.”
Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain -- I get the need for caution with these regimes. But when it comes to Syria, why are we waiting? Shouldn't we be doing everything to undermine the Assad regime? How is civil war in Syria not a net-plus for American interests? Why Libya and not Syria?
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Jan '11
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
Why Libya and not Syria? The easy answer is oil, but ... then how do we explain the refusal to help the opposition to Iran? We may have hesitations about the replacement regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya ... but we know that anything that replaces Iran's government is going to be a plus. So, if there is a logic, we should be aggressively promoting Iranian dissent.
That sound you hear is the crickets ...
I can't help but wonder whether the reason we hold back on Iran is because of China. Has China forbidden us from attacking Iran? And are we compliant because of our dependence on China? Obviously, this is speculation, but I'm trying to find the barking dog.
If our logic is that we must attack Libya because the regime is killing its own people, then Iran is the giant question: Why don't we do the same for Iran? Iran's importance dwarfs every other Muslim country right now.
Mar '11
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
This really is one of the worst times in history to have such an isolationist president.
Can you imagine what the Middle East could have become these past few months with a more Reagan-esque president?
I fear we will never have so many opportunities like this again...
Jul '10
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
We'll be the "Zionist puppets" if we go after Syria.
And President Obama isn't exactly a friend to Israel.
Jul '10
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
In a press conference Obama will promise Us that in Syria there will be "no boots on the ground" or Military interference and he'll succeed overwhelmingly using.....
"Telekinetic Executive Action"
Edited on Mar 25, 2011 at 1:12pmMay '10
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
Since Syria is just Eastern Iran, our administration uses the same restraint that it used in June, 2009. Besides the threshold for intervention in true Muslim theocracies is northward of 30,000, see Hama 1982.
Feb '11
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
Do you seriously want a 4th war? How many is going to be enough?
Jan '11
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
No. We're challenging the justification for the third.
Re: Why No Kinetic Military Action in Syria?
Good point. I don't. (I'm not even sure I want the other three, frankly...) But it seems to me if we're going to intervene, let's make sure there's a big upside there for us. If we were going into Libya for "oil," that would be a useful motive. We need oil. Oil is important. But we're not planning for the post-Qaddafy regime. We're not even planning for the current Qaddafy regime. We're just bombing, because....because he's a bad dude. But the region is full of bad dudes -- some a lot badder than Qaddafy. So why not disrupt Assad, in Syria, who really needs it -- and if Syria erupts into chaos, world oil markets aren't disrupted.