The wrong dictator?
It is evident that the US cannot be the world's policeman. Much of the need for international humanitarian and military action today is in the Arab Muslim world, and the US is already spread pretty thin in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US has an agreement with the Government of Iraq to withdraw all active US forces (apart from training) by December 2011 (i.e. in 8 months). But, in view of the current situation of uprisings in the Arab world making the whole region unstable, the US is now trying to persuade the Malaki Government to request a delay in the withdrawal.
The Obama Administration showed its reluctance to get involved in the Libya crisis by refusing to be in charge of the operation mandated by the UN, and instead passed responsibility to NATO, and refused to consider "boots on the ground" there. Now the situation in Syria has escalated and massive human rights abuses are being inflicted by the Assad regime on the Syrian people. What's a well-intentioned powerful democratic leader to do?
If you have limited resources, which dictator should you oppose, Gaddafi or Assad? Well, Gaddafi came first, because his regime, while repressive, was not as brutal as Assad's, and it took longer for the people of Syria to pluck up the courage to oppose it and demonstrate. But, also, Libya has oil (the 7th largest supplies in the world), and the US and its European allies want to make sure that the oil is going to be produced in the shortest term. Syria does not have oil and consequently one might argue that it is less important to remove Assad than Gaddafi. However, Assad is a direct belligerant in the Israel-Arab conflict, and many have argued that separating Syria from Iran could have a very significant effect on that conflict. In fact, in order to try to do this, Obama optimistically re-established diplomatic relations with Syria and tried to "engage" Assad in dialog. Now we see the futility of that "policy", and those of us who argued against both dealing with Assad and assuming that the solution to the Israel-Arab conflict is fundamental to Middle East peace have been vindicated. So the US should remove Gaddafi, but leave Syria's Assad to stew in his own juices, at least for a while.
The Obama Administration showed its reluctance to get involved in the Libya crisis by refusing to be in charge of the operation mandated by the UN, and instead passed responsibility to NATO, and refused to consider "boots on the ground" there. Now the situation in Syria has escalated and massive human rights abuses are being inflicted by the Assad regime on the Syrian people. What's a well-intentioned powerful democratic leader to do?
If you have limited resources, which dictator should you oppose, Gaddafi or Assad? Well, Gaddafi came first, because his regime, while repressive, was not as brutal as Assad's, and it took longer for the people of Syria to pluck up the courage to oppose it and demonstrate. But, also, Libya has oil (the 7th largest supplies in the world), and the US and its European allies want to make sure that the oil is going to be produced in the shortest term. Syria does not have oil and consequently one might argue that it is less important to remove Assad than Gaddafi. However, Assad is a direct belligerant in the Israel-Arab conflict, and many have argued that separating Syria from Iran could have a very significant effect on that conflict. In fact, in order to try to do this, Obama optimistically re-established diplomatic relations with Syria and tried to "engage" Assad in dialog. Now we see the futility of that "policy", and those of us who argued against both dealing with Assad and assuming that the solution to the Israel-Arab conflict is fundamental to Middle East peace have been vindicated. So the US should remove Gaddafi, but leave Syria's Assad to stew in his own juices, at least for a while.
posted by Jack Cohen at 3:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home