Syria, World Credibility and the Crossing of a Line

Syria, World Credibility and the Crossing of a Line

I had to shake my head when U.S. Minority Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked yesterday what was different now than before in Syria? Her answer amounted to Syria crossing a line when chemicals were used to kill 1400 people. And that is when the disgust set in because I had said long ago in a post about Libya that if we were going to go to war it should be to stop the genocide of Syrians as opposed to appeasing French whims on ousting Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi.

Look I wasn't saying that Gaddafi wasn't an evil dictator but for the most part Libya had been fairly stable despite the civil war in parts of the country. His ouster, I thought, would only create a power vacuum of unknown proportions. So where is Libya today? Well the Christian Science Monitor has written that "two years after Libyans ousted Muammar Qaddafi, law and order remain elusive, stymieing rebuilding efforts."

Well one didn't need to be psychic to know that that was going to happen. But I find it somewhat ironic that this everyday guy can foresee the obvious while our elected leaders cannot. Maybe they should be viewing that recent documentary on Libya where people who were once all in favor of getting rid of the Madman are now thinking that it wasn't such a good idea after all because they were now wishing for they could just get their hands on some of the basic of basic necessities.

So I guess one must be real careful for what they wish for you know?

But when it comes to Syria and Bashar al-Assad, though, perhaps that was the one place where that wish should have been acted upon then rather than now. And the way I see it the world lost its credibility way back when Assad started butchering his people with impunity as the world stood silent. Well all except for the Arab League who had pleaded for intervention more than a year ago.

And yet the world stood at ease watching Assad continue the carnage upon his people.

But it is just now, that we earnestly speak of Syria, World Credibility and the Crossing of a Line. Really Ms Nancy Pelosi? Are you off your rocker or what? There is absolutely no difference between sending out your military to cut people down in a hail of bullets or gassing them with chemicals. The crossing of a line occurred when the head of the Syrian State decided that his peoples lives didn't matter in the least.

The reality is that Bashar al-Assad crossed that line a long time ago and it was decided that going into Libya was more important than Syria. Well the time has come and gone to do something and anything done now means nothing except........

who really crossed the line?

Comments

Leave a comment
  • This gets back to my "backed into a corner" statement starting off the last post on this topic.

    The things that may be the same as Libya came up on later news shows, such as that there doesn't seem to be any center to take over if Assad is gone. Also, what complicated stuff last year was the Arab League insistence that any resolution provide that Assad be gone, which immediately teed off Russia, maybe for good reason. In the meantime, we don't know what arms the Arab League is offering the rebels and to whom (including al Queda allies).

    The other points recently made that seem valid is that we gave Assad a couple of weeks to hide his weapons or delivery systems, and if we don't do anything now, both Israel and Iran will get the message that we won't do anything about Iran's nuclear program.

    Other commentators have stressed the unique brutality of chemical weapons, which have generally been banned since WWI. I suppose it would have been worse if Assad nuked civilian areas, but that wasn't going to happen.

    But I guess I have to rely on my "backed into a corner" view.

  • In reply to jack:

    Of course you are right that they are "backed into a corner" NOW - but my point is it didn't need to be that way. You see I see no distinction between the HOW a state does what it does and the WHY. This shit with Syria has dragged on and on and on. And now as you say, he has probably mobilized what he has and/or hid it.

    This fool needed to be preemptively struck when it could do the most damage. But of course Obama hasn't had a clue on how to do anything diplomatically or militarily when it comes to the Arabs, the Arab Spring or the Middle East in general.

    A perfect cluster-fu$k.

  • In reply to Michael Ciric:

    I thought developments in Egypt in the past month proved that.

    The fallacy seemed to be the assumption that the Arab Spring would instantly turn into democracy in an area that had no experience with it, other than as enabling Islamic radicals. We thought that the Egyptian army would do the job for us when they deposed Mubarak, but certainly nobody wanted to get involved in Syrian internal "politics."

  • In reply to jack:

    Well that's true Jack.

    If you remember (maybe not) I once said "another's interpretation can be entirely different from ours" so how can we ever expect to so-called install Democracy in places like the Middle East?

    As for no one wanting to get involved with Syria then when it would have meant something - now it is simply too late as the power vacuum that is created involves far more extremist elements. For instance, over a year ago the Arab League asked Hamas (which one way or another have a "social relationship with the average Arab" so in some way more trustable than say Hezbollah. That went down the crapper and now you have 5 or 6 groups trying to influence the rebels to gain a toe hold when that vacuum emerges. It's a nightmare and waiting didn't help.

Leave a comment