Home
RSS Feed
E-Mail
Categories: Uncategorized
Tags: libya, syria
The recent massacre by the Syrian government of 108 people, mostly women and children, will inevitably put intense pressure on a reluctant Obama administration to take out President Bashar al-Assad using force. As was obvious when the United States evicted Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi after he threatened to kill lots of his compatriots, hawks thirsting for future American intervention in the world will use this as a bloodless (that is, free of American blood) model to depose dictators from the air. But the administration, which also has been rash in its expansion of the drone war against al-Qaeda and related groups, has wisely avoided intervention in Syria for a variety of good reasons.
The main reason is that military action in Syria would not be as easy as it was in Libya. And the use of armed force in Libya seems easier in retrospect than it was — it dragged out for months with no conclusion, with some bitten nails on the part of the administration.
Ever since Bill Clinton learned in Somalia in 1993 that inserting substantial U.S. ground forces into developing countries could backfire or lead to a quagmire, the American model has been to find a local force to hold an enemy in position on the ground while using U.S. air power to pummel opposing forces. The model was used successfully in Bosnia and Kosovo in the mid- to late-1990s, to initially take out the Taliban in 2001, and to depose Gadhafi in Libya in 2011. By the time of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the model had worked so well that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld decided that air power was now so dominant in warfare that smaller American ground forces could support U.S. air power against even more formidable military opponents, such Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces. Previously, since the invention of the airplane, aircraft had supported ground forces or bombed independently of them.
Rumsfeld was probably correct that smaller ground forces, U.S. or local, can support massive U.S. air power against more capable adversaries (as Iraq has shown, however, occupying the country or fighting guerrillas will require many more ground forces). Furthermore, dictators sometimes can be eliminated without U.S. forces on the ground, as long as local forces are capable. The problem in Syria is that the opposition is less capable and more splintered and chaotic than in Libya, and the Syrian military is much stronger. In Libya, Gadhafi deliberately kept his military weak so that it wouldn’t threaten his power. Assad — with the militarily capable Iraq, Turkey, and Israel on his borders — hasn’t had that luxury and therefore has maintained fairly capable armed forces with much better air defenses than Libya possessed.
So if American air power failed to take out Assad, which would be a real possibility, pressure could mount quickly to insert U.S. ground forces. This outcome would be risky and potentially disastrous in an election year. That is why Obama has been reluctant to escalate the Syrian situation.
What happens after the election is another story. If Obama wins, he won’t face re-election and may be less cautious about trying to remove Assad from power. Mitt Romney — who tries to be all things to all people, and like George W. Bush when he entered office, doesn’t seem to have a coherent worldview — could be easily persuaded by his many neoconservative foreign policy advisers to go after Assad. Romney has already called for arming the opposition. So whichever candidate wins, disaster could ensue in Syria.
If U.S. ground forces were used, a repeat of Iraq could occur: a protracted guerrilla insurgency plus a civil war among a population with similar ethno-sectarian fractures — with al-Qaeda as one of the participants. Libya still has the possibility of a civil war breaking out among tribal militias armed to the teeth, but Syria has even more volatile political fissures.
Arming the opposition can also lead to the slippery slope of U.S. military intervention. Even the currently cautious Obama administration is providing “non-lethal” aid to the Syrian opposition and looking the other way as Sunni Arab Gulf states provide weapons. Yet non-lethal aid is a misnomer, because although it may not shoot, much of it, such as communication devices, dramatically improves the combat power of the Syrian opposition, thus escalating the killing.
Although it is difficult for Americans to watch Assad kill his own people, what comes after Assad might be even worse for the region and the United States. The United States should stay on the sidelines and let regional powers, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, take the lead in dealing with the Syrian mess. The United States can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman — either morally or financially.
24 Responses
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
Shame on antiwar.com.
First of all what evidence do you have that Syrian government agents or the Syrian military carried out this massacre?
I see only one link to an article that blames the Syrian government but no links to any independent investigation conducted by a neutral third-party about what really happened. We saw stories like this before in 1998-1999 right before the intervention in Kosovo and they turned out to be either total lies or half-truths at most.
Second, Gaddafi didn't "threaten to kill lots of his people". That lie was debunked almost a year ago.
Third, the reason to stay out of Syria isn't because an intervention could "make things worse". NONE of these "humanitarian" interventions have anything to do with helping anyone.
The intervention in Bosnia gave NATO a reason to justify its existence after the Cold War and set an example for similar dishonest "humanitarian" interventions in other parts of the world. Bosnia today is a fake, artificial "country" whose people don't like each other, don't want to live with each other in one nation, and who would have went their separate ways a long time ago if NATO had stayed out of there.
The intervention in Kosovo created an Albanian mafia-run state in the Balkans and resulted in ethnic cleansing of all non-Albanians from Kosovo. And the "Kosovars" themselves don't want an independent nation of Kosovo (another fake country). They want to unite with their fellow Albanians in Albania.
The intervention in Lybia resulted in anarchy in that country.
So what is it really about? Power and control. There are now NATO/U.S. bases and client regimes in Bosnia and Kosovo, which is what these interventions were all about in the first place. There are no Western bases yet in Lybia but there is a new Lybian client regime that owes its very existence to the West. That is what's in store for Syria and Iran.
These countries are being targeted because they are too independent for their own good… and we can't allow that in a strategic oil-rich region like the Middle East.
Thank you for an insightful comment "guest".
To my knowledge, Ivan Eland still stick´s to the many times over debunked speech of Ahmadinejad parroted in western corporate media "to wipe Jews or israel off the map" (Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.) and i believe he will stick to this one as well until CNN, FOX & Co says otherwise. If he can´t get the facts right he shouldn´t mention them at all.
I agree with you Guest. i think this is an awful article, and completely misses the key issue of the extension of US/western imperialism. The sentence which includes "The recent massacre by the Syrian government" could have come from any of the gutter press or jingoist imperialist politician. Why would the Syrian government leave people they are supposed to have shot through the back of the head to be found so conveniently? If they were in control of the area they would surely have destroyed the evidence. But it does seem to me the massacre narrative does fit nicely with the renewed effort by France and the UK with the approval of the US no doubt to mount some sort of armed intervention on "humanitarian" grounds. Eland seems to be mopre concerned about the advantages or disadvantages to the US, of armed intervention, rather than the future of the Syrian people. The reason for opposing intervention is exactly the same as for Libya, intervention is aimed at imperialist domination and ultimate denial of freedom to thye people of those countries.
We don't know that the Syrian government is responsible for the massacre. The author presents without evidence. Secondly,"Although it is difficult for Americans to watch Assad kill his own people"; the 'American people' also watched Waco and then went on with their lives.
The recent "massacre" has False Flag Attack written all over it. 24 hours before Ban is about to release a report claiming vast areas are under the control of the "rebels" and huge areas of Syrian cities are smashed up, 72 hours before Annan makes a visit saying "things are at a tippimg point," and 72 hours before William Hague set off the Moscow it occurs with all out publicity in the Western media.
Meanwhile what does Antwar.com do? They are having what has become known in Britain as a "Peoples Front of Judaea" moment, from the satirical Monty Python film, The Life of Brian, all sitting there talking and missing the whole significance of events.
"It's all happening,Reg!, It's all happening!" Judith.
But as Libitarians perhaps they don't know about the film.
One the issue of the massacre:
Why would Assad massacre the very people he would expect to be governing? He is presumably trying to stay in power so it makes absolutely no sense for his to kill his own people. What would his motive be for such a thing? Even if he contemplated such a thing, for whatever reason, he's no fool and he would know he would be discovered and the act would bring down international condemnation and weaken his support from other nations and individuals.
On the other hand, it makes PERFECT sense for the 'rebels' to commit such an act and pin it on government forces. Listening to the talking heads on TV, one would think the government is in trouble, but quite the opposite is true on the ground: the rebels are losing, and losing badly, and they are in need of every bit of support they can get from any source- what better way than a very public massacre (naturally involving women and children- it's not a proper massacre without those) and trotted out for the world's media to lap up for the latest war porn? Committing such a crime takes care of two problems: first, it makes the opposition look bad and second, it removes more of the will of the people to resist a fundamental shakeup in their lives.
As Colonel Kurtz put it in 'Apocalypse Now', "Horror…. horror and moral terror must become your friends" and it seems our rebel buddies are adopting that strategy. They did it in the Balkans, then Libya and they're doing it in Syria now. One has to wonder exactly who is playing the role of Colonel Kurtz now?
On the issue of the massacre:
Why would Assad massacre the very people he would expect to be governing? He is presumably trying to stay in power so it makes absolutely no sense for his to kill his own people. What would his motive be for such a thing? Even if he contemplated such a thing, for whatever reason, he's no fool and he would know he would be discovered and the act would bring down international condemnation and weaken his support from other nations and individuals.
On the other hand, it makes PERFECT sense for the 'rebels' to commit such an act and pin it on government forces. Listening to the talking heads on TV, one would think the government is in trouble, but quite the opposite is true on the ground: the rebels are losing, and losing badly, and they are in need of every bit of support they can get from any source- what better way than a very public massacre (naturally involving women and children- it's not a proper massacre without those) and trotted out for the world's media to lap up for the latest war porn? Committing such a crime takes care of two problems: first, it makes the opposition look bad and second, it removes more of the will of the people to resist a fundamental shakeup in their lives.
As Colonel Kurtz put it in 'Apocalypse Now', "Horror…. horror and moral terror must become your friends" and it seems our rebel buddies are adopting that strategy. They did it in the Balkans, then Libya and they're doing it in Syria now. One has to wonder exactly who is playing the role of Colonel Kurtz now?
Gaddafi had gold and he failed to understand that when the whores like McCain started to warm up that they were looking to feed on the dead bodies in Libya. We now live in a world that the United Nation has no meaning. Members can be attacked by other member and the leader of the United Nations will act as a cheerleader.
We living in a world of pure military power and that is good for us but I fear for only the short term. We are owned by the bankers who are the real problem. Libya was murder just like Syria. This is all operation of clean break which is the zionist plan on taking over the middle east by removing governments that Israel does not like and putting puppets in their place. The real success of operation clean break has to be questioned. Look at the disaster Gaza was because the people of gaza did not vote for the Israel puppet. Look at the disaster when the IDF entered Libya in 2006. Things can go wrong and how many of our kids need to die for war mongers.
I would wonder how can we blame the syrian government for attacking armed individual who probably never lived in syria. Would not a armed group face attack if they were in the USA and stated they planned on taking over the government. Has not all nations been allowed to defend against harm?
The problem is you cannot trust anything that is reported. Money is king of all matters.
Libya is not finished yet, there is a lot of trouble in the south, aka Mali, Niger and Chad.
This massacre may have been perpetrated by an Allawite militia. If that's so, it's not grounds for removing Assad even though the militia is theoretically one of "his". There is a saying in Syria, among the opposition: "Christians to Lebanon, Allawites to the wall." Syria is a multicultural mosaic of ethnic groups, some of whom seems to have significant thug subgroupings quite capable of genocide against the others. In that situation history has taught that displacing the state frees the militias, and hundreds of thousands of people die. It's a powder keg, and Assad and father have kept the lid on for forty years.
Without this foreign intervention Assad's forces would have kept those militias in their own neighborhoods. And shot them to keep them there if necessary.
The world community is not accusing the perpetrators. They're accusing the only people who can keep this from happening.
Intervention is prying the lid off.
And by the way, you vastly understate the military dimension of intervention. Syria is armed to the teeth. They are capable not just of opposing but of defeating a half-hearted foreign intervention like Libya. Like Iran, they have the equipment to sink and aircraft carrier or two. Libya had weapons for show. Syria may not be able to compete with Israel in an all-out war, but they can defend themselves.
Some of you in Antiwar.com seams working for the democratic party coming up with beforehand accusation documenting the history about matters that are not proven but as a personal fact for such personality as Evan Eland to write about. Where in hell do you get your information and informed that the source of this atrocities is the Syrian government, as journalist you are obligated to informer your readers, if you have any documented or photos or anything beside your stupidity writing about the matter let us know so we and people around the world can believe your saying, if nothing els is good for the future of antwar.com, otherwise such writing not only confusing, but it seams to carrying a purpose which is confusing people, here, this kind of journalism is the kind that CNN and other arranged journalism is about which questions the fact if Antiwar stands by its name or it has become another entity to a falsified democracy and prospecting the facts.
I'm afraid these are questions which must be asked.
"Eric, it's all happening, Eric! All you have to do is go out there! All you have to do ir print the article!".
My thoughts exactly. Shame on antiwar.com. I cant believe they are actually buying what the msm is selling. Assad is not killing his own people. There is absolutely no evidence to support that. The rebels fighting against the Assad government are the ones killing innocent civilians. And no mention that al-qaeda is one of the driving forces of this rebellion. A quick mention that they are a faction within the country, but not a peep about them being involved in the fighting. I would'nt be a bit surprised to find this rebellion was
started and egged on by the NED. The only logical conclusion is that this is designed by the secret forces within the US government to weaken an ally of Iran. I dont think we will see "boots on the ground" as they are so fond of saying. This would require US forces to fight alongside al-qaeda forces. By the way, seems I remember reading recently that the majority of the people in Syria support the current regime; may have even been on this site. I have seen pictures and video of very large pro-Assad rallys. Be hard for the US to claim they are "liberating" people who are happy with what they currently have.
I think Ivan Eland needs to go. Antiwar.com is in the middle of a fundraising drive and articles by people like Eland are not going to help them raise the money they need to stay afloat. I for one will not donate one penny if they are going to post articles like this. Eland does not sound like an antiwar proponent in this article. He seems to be weighing the possible repurcussions for the US if they intervene. I would definitely need to see some kind of response about this from antiwar.com before I make my donation. If I wanted this kind of garbage I would watch cnn or fox news.
I certainly agree with the majority here…this article stinks…and Eland has no business writing about "antiwar" on an "alternative" news site…
The few times I have bothered to read his offerings I have been less than impressed to say the least…if I want the mainstream media spin on things then why would I go to alternative media…?
I will also just mention that this website has gone way downhill in the last couple of years…frankly I think it has been taken over by those who would subvert the antiwar movement…
For months this website's in-house news writers persisted in painting the Syrian unrest as government forces shooting at unarmed pro-democracy demonstrators…despite constant objections from well informed readers…
The in-house "reporting" was simply repeating nearly word for word the MSM garbage which was clearly designed to demonize the Assad government (which does incidentally enjoy wide popular support as has been pointed out here)…and to boost the PR of the "opposition" which is in fact neither democratic nor has any significant public following…
It is probably true as has been pointed out here that the rebellion was cooked up in Washington, Paris and London…with funds, covert support, arms, training, mercenaries…etc…everything you need to create an armed rebellion inside a targeted country…and it would certainly not be the first time…as has been well documented in dozens of countries by authors like Blum, Hersh and others…
continued…
So the question is really why on earth does a supposedly antiwar website not put this activity under the microscope…?…Are we all okay with our government sposnoring violence in other countries…?…and using this violence to then cynically justify an even more violent intervention using all of our military might…
These are questions that do not seem to trouble Mr. Eland…nor many others here at "antiwar".com…
And just one more obvious observation…the violence in Syria could stop tomorrow if the US and its allies in this enterprise cut off support for the rebels…
But the US and its Nato allies continue to stoke the violence on the one hand…while deploriing the Syrian government for its inability to stop said violence on the other…
Again…are we all okay with this…?
they could maybe get some old photos like one mSM GOT FOR THE WAR FOR their viewers . I liked the one with the kides jumping over the bodies . only it was a 10 yr old photo for a new war . Anti war I think doesn't use old photos
I thought I did you must have seen it but its gone now
Thats what they done to Milosevic , Should have seen him in court . The court promised NATO they would not look for war crimes committed by NATO . 54000 pages of testimoney ,brought NATOS war crimes any way . Milosevic wittnesses were mostly western wittnessess , finally the prosecuter dropped the main charges , Yet the court Judges would not dismiss the case . when Milosevic asked for a dissmisle . They said they thought surely something will stick . Milosevic would have been having the best time of his life . If he had not been so sick from the posion the court prison was feeding him , Of course he could have been posioning himself too to ruin the case against him , the court said ..At least we never got a chance to find out .
Eric, you aren't the Eric being referred to. You are right over Milosevic as well. No trials for Western crimes inYugoslavia.