Let’s look at the two major conflicts in the Arab uprising. In Libya, the rebels have taken Zawiya and the tide does seem to be turning in the civil war. Foreigners in Tripoli are being evacuated and the rebel leadership is already looking at the post-Gadhafi era. That story began with Western powers calling for Moammar Gadhafi’s ouster and then intervening with planes and drones.
In Syria, after five months of brutality, just this week the Presidents of America and key European countries finally called on Bashar al-Assad to resign. And Assad has responded to this by continuing to order his security forces to fire on civilian protesters.
Thousands of Syrians took to the streets across the country on Friday calling for the downfall of President Bashar al-Assad, keeping up the pressure in the five-month-old uprising a day after an alliance of nations led by the United States publicly called on him for the first time to step down and toughened sanctions against his government. At least 18 people were reported killed, including some soldiers who disobeyed orders to shoot at protesters [...]
Activists and residents reached in Syria reported shooting in several areas across the country, despite Mr. Assad’s assertion two days earlier that all military operations against the opposition had ended. They said that 15 demonstrators were killed in the southern Dara’a Province, where the first protests began five months ago after security forces arrested and tortured high school students caught scrawling antigovernment graffiti on walls.
Among the dead in Dara’a were five army soldiers who refused to open fire on protesters, according to the Local Coordination Committees, a group of activists who document and organize protests. They also said that two people died in the suburbs of Damascus when their demonstrations came under fire and that one was killed in Homs, Syria’s third-largest city, where some of the biggest demonstrations against the government of Mr. Assad have occurred.
Soldiers refusing to shoot at protesters is a new developments, but as you can see, other soldiers were not above firing on those dissenters.
Many can ask the question why Libya and not Syria. The answer the Administration has given is that the protest movement has made it clear that they wish no foreign intervention, and that they are respecting those wishes. The protesters have been explicit on this front.
And yet, when you’re an American President, and you say that a dictator must go, you put yourself in a difficult position. It’s the right position morally above merely ignoring the situation. But it’s a tricky position geopolitically.
I would argue that this is due to past interventions which were completely unwise. Seeing restraint in Syria, amid a rejection by the nominal allies of any foreign presence, is admirable. But the juxtaposition of this and the intervention in Libya is undeniable, and it spins people off into figuring out justifications for one and not the other. It becomes a slippery slope to eventual action, and it puts the US in this terrible position.
Meanwhile the UN is is sending a humanitarian mission. So there’s that.





10 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I don’t think the protesters are unanimous that they don’t want foreign intervention, but since overt Western involvement is unlikely anyway they keep their options open by saying they don’t want it. Their best-case scenario would be to convince Iran to stop backing Assad. That’s not going to happen if it turns into a proxy war with Iran.
Dday, you should take a gander at Col. Lang’s latest post… Review of Arab Situations…
The U.S. has no fucking business in Libya OR Syria. None. The neo-cons are a group of extremely stupid, rich white girly men. They have never been to war but they want the American working class to conquer the world by force of arms.
Please be a Republican for a day and vote for Ron Paul. Lets stop bombing and invading other countries. It’s wrong and it costs too much.
Here’s a really good piece of a theme that I’ve been seeing a bit of, off the MSM beaten path.
the dubious credentials of US ambassador to damascus, robert ford
No wonder Assad keeps firing on them. And we don’t know if they are unarmed or the actual death count.
Here’s the lovely
R2PFoot in the door technique for Regime change in Libya.atrocities we just don’t seem to get agitated about
Why Libya and not Syria?
Because they’re different. While they have the same size economies, Syria has three times the population and a much stronger military. There are also geopolitical considerations. Libya is isolated in North Africa with nearby European enemies whereas Syria has a powerful ally (Iran) in the volatile Middle East, where the U.S. has a full docket already.
So much for R2P – responsibility to protect. It was the cover story for Libya but come on, the idea of the U.S. protecting civilians flies in the faced of past U.S. military actions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind, among others.
I smell something fishy whenever our guvmint (and the so-called “West”) rails against any country. Black Agenda Report has some good articles on Libya. One article in BAR had a very apt headline – NATO to liberate Africans from Africans. The latest piece talks about the racism among Libyan rebels :
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/black-libya-city-said-fall-rebel-siege
And Global Research is good on both Libya & Syria.
I am flabbergasted so many liberals and progressives have led themselves to be misled on Libya & Syria. And that includes Amy Goodman. There will be tons of “Mea culpas” down the line. To me the fundamental question is why anyone would trust US or the NATO to get anything right given their past record.
I highly recommend the book “The politics of Genocide” by Edward Herman.
I’d be a little careful about using Michel Chossudovsky as an authoritative source; I’m pretty sure he’s a diehard believer in the theory that the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center was an inside, government job.
The other thing is, I can’t believe Israel or its U.S. allies are happy with what’s going on, do you? To me it looks like the Arab spring in Egypt has not been good at all for the forces of the status quo in Israel, and that’s an understatement.
No one here has explained why the United States or anyone in the West would want what is happening in Libya. Gaddhafy has been there for 40-plus years and the U.S. made its peace with the dictator a number of years ago. Other western countries have supplied him with military and other aid. So, what does the west get out of what’s happening now? In fact, if Gaddhafy could have quickly put down the rebellion it would have helped to snuff out rebellions in other places, such as Bahrain and Yemen, where the U.S. has more to lose. The Arab spring in Egypt has resulted in an Iranian warship being allowed to move through the Suez Canal, according to a report I heard, and more recently the NY Times reported the new situation has allowed saboteurs in the Sinai to blow up natural gas pipelines that supply gas to Israel. Why would the United States, which toadies to Israel every step of the way, want any of these things? The answer is that the United States doesn’t want it, but doesn’t control events.
Regardless of his views on 9/11, that has nothing to do with Libya so it makes your argument ad-hominem, and you didn’t address any of his points, and these are not limited to just him. The us is aligned covertly with the muslim brotherhood, and any rightwing group that will advance our interests no matter how odious they are.
None of us are right about everything, in fact you start out by asking questions only to deliver your own answer which doesn’t jive with reality. If the US didn’t want control of Libya or Africa then it would not have involved itself in the attack on Libya. We have forces all over the continent, dividing countries for energy and mineral extraction. Gadhafi got in the way of that, opposing permanent SOCOM bases, an attempting to create an African Monetary Union. Gadhafi was not subordinating himself sufficiently.
I guess I hadn’t read about the SOCOM bases. I used to sometimes read Michel C. I don’t think everything he writes is outlandish by any means, but his beliefs about 9/11 affect his credibility generally, with me anyway.
Without really being in the position to know for sure of course, I assume Obama got involved in Libya because it was apparent that Gaddhafy was getting ready to kill a lot more people, and the U.S. was in a position to do something very limited to stop it without getting the military into a big commitment; and for whatever reason all of it seemed very high profile, and not to do anything would have looked quite bad. It was a judgment call. I’m not a big fan of Obama, but I feel that in this instance he did the right thing.