The Syrian war seems something of an international project that would not have developed so far as 80,000 dead without much international support including that of the United State's Obama administration. There is something about supporting the development of avoidable foreign conflicts that appeals to some when their own military is not engaged in action. Death of civilians is sometimes not a problem sufficient enough for an Obama administration to carefully consider a priori what consequences their support for the incipient Syrian conflict would occur. Reasonable people know the nature of the Syrian Government and regional circumstances enough to know that it would not easily relinquish power.
The United Nations has reported the probable use of chemical weapons in Syria by one side or the other in the conflict-or perhaps both, yet since the U.S. propaganda about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq turned out to be as bogus as the facts used in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution we are somewhat skeptical about the veracity and language used in media releases of casus belli for possible intervention or escalation of foreign military action in 3rd party conflicts.
The U.S. administration's logic is difficult to follow on Middle East policy. President Obama appeared to have stimulated and green lighted the Arab Spring with his Cairo speech and of course supported the Libyan revolution. American interests in repressing Al Qa'eda-a Sunni extremist organization coincided with ideas about fostering the development of democratic government in the Middle East that weren't evidently overly practical. The Saudi Royals are anything besides democratic, our friends in the Hashamite monarchy of Jordan are nice yet royal too, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt of which the President of Egypt is a member appears to be at least mildly interested in developing Shria Muslim law and so forth. Democracy is not a traditional form of Arab social organization and might require deep sociological changes before such an experiment might ensue successfully. We tend to believe that Arab democracies would slip into the French republic into Napoleonic leadership autocracy mode for a few generations before they reached the perfection of a Nixon or Obama administration in enforcing equal protection of the law.
If the Obama administration is concerned about destabilizing Syria and accomplishing some form of adult abortion service for that region in harmony with the partisan political action committee Planned Parenthood's agenda on a global scale or not the greater objectives of containing the Iranian Government and President Amadinijab (to cannot run for another term as Iranian Preident) and his threats on Israel may seem to be advanced with a Syrian conflict supported by Sunni wealth, visiting Al Qa'eda terrorists and financial and equipment contributions to rebels from the United States.
Russia has of course contributed military weapons to the Syrian Government while N.A.T.O. has seemed to provide support for the rebels along with the Friends of Syria organization. Russia has naval facilities in Syria that allow their vessels to have a warm water port outside the Black Sea-a concern the United States ought to keep in mind. It is an historical concern of Russia that should not be lightly disregarded as unimportant value to Russians they can bite the bullet on. Russia's other interests in support of a non Sunni Muslim presence below it's southern border may be related to its concerns about domestic Russia terrorism from the Sunni of Chechnya or elsewhere. It may also be that Russia seeks weapons sales as much as the United States for economic purposes. Perhaps the Obama administration should consider buying a few Migs to improve Russo-American relations.
It still seems to me that the best thing that could be done to reduce the Syrian conflict would be for the Obama administration to stop making statements in support of the rebels and to quit providing material assistance to the rebels. Quantifying the effects of a violent transition in the Syrian Government upon the Alawite and Hezballah of Lebanon is not easy. It is probable that some sort of new era of purging and terrorism could develop, and some sort of flight of those people to Iran. Perhaps those people might also develop more support for the Northern alliance side of Afghanistan in a post-American military era in that nation. If the Syrian Government of Assad is driven out of office even with strong support from his own tribal group the Sunni forces of the region make look with a swell of pride toward new objectives in Afghanistan in the belief that renewed and increased terrorism might drive the minority Northern Alliance out entirely and purge Afghanistan of non-Sunni political power.
It would have been best if the Syrian war had not developed but of course the Mr. McGoo foreign policy approach seems to work for the Obama administration, and it is a foreign war without American casualties. It would still have been better to have let democracy develop through peaceful twittering without a military component. Evolution inn politics through gradual change can be better than the bullets and explosives, chemical weapons and foreign interventions of deep water internationalism.
The United Nations has reported the probable use of chemical weapons in Syria by one side or the other in the conflict-or perhaps both, yet since the U.S. propaganda about weapons of mass destruction in Saddam Hussein's Iraq turned out to be as bogus as the facts used in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution we are somewhat skeptical about the veracity and language used in media releases of casus belli for possible intervention or escalation of foreign military action in 3rd party conflicts.
The U.S. administration's logic is difficult to follow on Middle East policy. President Obama appeared to have stimulated and green lighted the Arab Spring with his Cairo speech and of course supported the Libyan revolution. American interests in repressing Al Qa'eda-a Sunni extremist organization coincided with ideas about fostering the development of democratic government in the Middle East that weren't evidently overly practical. The Saudi Royals are anything besides democratic, our friends in the Hashamite monarchy of Jordan are nice yet royal too, the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt of which the President of Egypt is a member appears to be at least mildly interested in developing Shria Muslim law and so forth. Democracy is not a traditional form of Arab social organization and might require deep sociological changes before such an experiment might ensue successfully. We tend to believe that Arab democracies would slip into the French republic into Napoleonic leadership autocracy mode for a few generations before they reached the perfection of a Nixon or Obama administration in enforcing equal protection of the law.
If the Obama administration is concerned about destabilizing Syria and accomplishing some form of adult abortion service for that region in harmony with the partisan political action committee Planned Parenthood's agenda on a global scale or not the greater objectives of containing the Iranian Government and President Amadinijab (to cannot run for another term as Iranian Preident) and his threats on Israel may seem to be advanced with a Syrian conflict supported by Sunni wealth, visiting Al Qa'eda terrorists and financial and equipment contributions to rebels from the United States.
Russia has of course contributed military weapons to the Syrian Government while N.A.T.O. has seemed to provide support for the rebels along with the Friends of Syria organization. Russia has naval facilities in Syria that allow their vessels to have a warm water port outside the Black Sea-a concern the United States ought to keep in mind. It is an historical concern of Russia that should not be lightly disregarded as unimportant value to Russians they can bite the bullet on. Russia's other interests in support of a non Sunni Muslim presence below it's southern border may be related to its concerns about domestic Russia terrorism from the Sunni of Chechnya or elsewhere. It may also be that Russia seeks weapons sales as much as the United States for economic purposes. Perhaps the Obama administration should consider buying a few Migs to improve Russo-American relations.
It still seems to me that the best thing that could be done to reduce the Syrian conflict would be for the Obama administration to stop making statements in support of the rebels and to quit providing material assistance to the rebels. Quantifying the effects of a violent transition in the Syrian Government upon the Alawite and Hezballah of Lebanon is not easy. It is probable that some sort of new era of purging and terrorism could develop, and some sort of flight of those people to Iran. Perhaps those people might also develop more support for the Northern alliance side of Afghanistan in a post-American military era in that nation. If the Syrian Government of Assad is driven out of office even with strong support from his own tribal group the Sunni forces of the region make look with a swell of pride toward new objectives in Afghanistan in the belief that renewed and increased terrorism might drive the minority Northern Alliance out entirely and purge Afghanistan of non-Sunni political power.
It would have been best if the Syrian war had not developed but of course the Mr. McGoo foreign policy approach seems to work for the Obama administration, and it is a foreign war without American casualties. It would still have been better to have let democracy develop through peaceful twittering without a military component. Evolution inn politics through gradual change can be better than the bullets and explosives, chemical weapons and foreign interventions of deep water internationalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment