|
|
May 21, 2013
|
|
What About Syria?Posted on Mar 29, 2011One historical purpose of presidential speeches has been to buy time to give presidents’ policies a chance to work out. That’s what President Barack Obama did last Monday night with a well-crafted and appropriately tough (or belligerent) speech defending his policies in Libya.
The man gives a great speech.
"The president spoke to the nation and made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight—and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others," said The New York Times in its lead editorial.
"Mr. Obama," said the Times, "said that the United States had a moral responsibility to stop ‘violence on a horrific scale,’ as well as a unique international mandate and a broad coalition to act with. He said that failure to intervene could also have threatened the peaceful transitions in Egypt and Tunisia, as thousands of Libyan refugees poured across their borders, while other dictators would conclude that ‘violence is the best strategy to cling to power.’ "
The Los Angeles Times editorialized: "Before President Obama’s address to the nation about Libya, three questions about U.S. involvement there loomed large: Why, among all the places with vulnerable civilian populations, did the U.S. and its allies choose to intervene in Libya? Was the mission designed to prevent civilian suffering or to topple Moammar Gadhafi? How (and how quickly) would the U.S. extricate itself from this engagement?"
Advertisement
The question these editorials were asking was: "Why is Libya unique, as opposed to other countries, for example Bahrain and Syria?"
Obama’s answer was fine as far as it went: A dictator was demonstrating that he would use massive military force against his own people. And what kind of people are we (and other Western countries) if we sit back and watch that happen on television and cellphones, as we did pre-cellphone in Rwanda in 1988?
I think he did the right thing, but am deeply worried about where it will lead.
This is no ordinary time. Presidents must react again and again to events unseen and threats unknown. The density of events these days is a different kind of tsunami than the earthquake-driven wall of water that demolished part of Japan. Mike Allen, whose morning blog is pretty much required reading in Washington, put it this way last Saturday:
"We’ve had a decade’s worth of news in less than two months: It was Feb. 11—seven weeks ago—that Mubarak fled the Arab spring, a rolling reordering of Middle East power that could wind up affecting global security as profoundly as 9/11. It was March 11—15 days ago—that we woke to the news of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, which will have ripple effects on the fragile global economy for months to come. And, oh, we’re in three hot conflicts at once, for the first time since World War II."
Ignoring the hypocritical Republican charges that Obama was a timid wuss in letting Libyans be massacred and now that he is going too far, too fast, Obama and the rest of us have barely a clue as to how the Libyan adventure will end. If the united-front airstrike strategy works, Obama is a hero. If Gadhafi retains power with crazed brute strength, Obama will have to take the blame at home.
And that is not the worst scenario. The greatest danger for us is in Syria. Libya is a small country on a sea with a horizon now dotted with coalition aircraft carriers. Syria has more than 22 million people, five times more than Libya. So the final unanswered question is what do we do if Bashar Assad is threatened by the Arab freedom wave and begins slaughtering more of his own people. If we (and probably Israel) go to war there, all bets are off—including what Iran will do—in the sandy quagmire that is the Middle East.
© 2011 Universal Uclick Previous item: Unexpected Revelations in Libya Intervention Next item: Flunking Teachers Gives the Ruling Class a Pass New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By norman harman, March 30, 2011 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Do you think any of these media idiots ever talk to anyone with differing views
from their own?
It seems they’re all sitting around in mirrored rooms, talking to, listening to,
hearing and seeing only themselves.
How can anyone in their right minds think more bombs, missiles and drones are
the answer to anything?
Have these morons been asleep for the last 10 years?
Report thisBy Aarky, March 30, 2011 at 2:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Too many people are setting their sights on Syria amd in too many cases the talking points are being provided by the Israelis. Why not Zimbabwe, Congo, Sierra Leone? Because the Israelis havn’t issued the talking points for those attacks,yet. You know that when Joe Lieberman and H Clinton start waving and rattling the saber toward Syria, the Israeli ambassador and AIPAC have given them their talking points. Hillary needs to take a couple Qualudes,and chill out. She is the Secretary of State, not Rambo!
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, March 30, 2011 at 12:53 pm Link to this comment
Whatever happened to the Arab saying:
Report this“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”?
By nefesh, March 30, 2011 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
Taikan is right, but the real reason is that Assad’s Hezbollah and Hamas
Report thisallies would rain thousands of katyushas and grad rockets all over Israeli
population centers in addition to similar bombardment by Syrian forces
themselves. Such would be the twisted irony of Israeli intervention to save
Arab civilians- the intentional slaughter (yet again) of Jews.
By MK Ultra, March 30, 2011 at 9:24 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What about Syria? Oh, that’s an easy one, they have no oil. Need I say more?
Report thisBy taikan, March 29, 2011 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment
Reeves is crazy if he thinks Israel will go to war to protect civilians in Syria from being slaughtered by Assad. Israeli involvement in a Syrian civil war would cause the rebels opposing Assad to lose all credibility among their fellow Arabs, and probably would cause serious damage to the credibility of those challenging the ruling leaders in other Arab countries.
Report thisBy doughboy, March 29, 2011 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment
What was it in 2003? Ties to the 9/11 terrorists? Or was it ties to
Report thisOsama Bin Laden? Or was it providing weapons of mass
destruction to terrorists? Or was it that Saddam had WMDs
stockpiled? I do think the last one was to provide freedom to the
Iraqi people. Afghanistan—home of al-Qaeda, home of the
Taliban, repressive Islam of women, etc. There are always
rationalizations for war. The United States is the only superpower.
A group of influential men in the 1990s drew up a game plan for
the 21st century—a new American century. We can have the army
to do what we want. Good thing? It is if we see ourselves as
gods. Do we have the right to shove down the throats our
conceptions of politics and economics to all mankind? What is the
end—a subservient world to feed our wants and needs—
consumption beyond our numbers? We see enemies everywhere—
especially those that buck our system. We make enemies too. The
Nazis are gone, the Commies (with the exception of China) are
gone, and now we have found a new enemy—bad Arabs and bad
Islam. Obviously, there are “good” Arabs and “good” Islam—those
we are allied with comes to mind. The others need to taught a
lesson. Maybe if we had smarter officials we would not find
ourselves with the temptation of interfering. Maybe Bush 2
shouldn’t have used Ghaddfi’s “reclamation” as proof of his
policies, or maybe Britain shouldn’t have succumbed to oil and
released Pan Am bomber; maybe Italy or France , etc. America is
no longer acting as a republic, but as global dominator that
believes that it has the right to do anything it pleases just because
it can. Julius Caesar would be jealous, but would understand the
feeling.