Syria shells residential neighborhoods; UN, Obama silent
President Obama justified the US-NATO intervention in Libya on the UN’s Responsibility to Protect, or R2P. That doctrine allows the international community to intervene in sovereign countries when their governments become an imminent physical threat to their citizens. It applied to Libya, we were told, because Gaddafi was set to commit genocide against towns where rebels were rising up against his dictatorship.
Why does R2P not apply to Syria, where dictator Bashar Assad’s forces are doing what Gaddafi threatened to do? That, the administration has not explained.
The Syrian army shelled residential areas in the country’s third-largest city Wednesday, killing at least one person in a sharp escalation in the government’s attempts to crush a popular revolt against President Bashar Assad’s autocratic rule, according to activists and witnesses.
Heavy tank- and gunfire rocked at least three residential neighborhoods in the besieged city of Homs, which has seen some of the largest anti-government demonstrations during the seven-week-long uprising.
“There were loud explosions and gunfire from automatic rifles throughout the night and until this morning,” a resident told The Associated Press by telephone, asking that his name not be used for fear of government reprisals. “The area is totally besieged. We are being shelled.”
The administration is hinting that it may slowly ratchet up criticism of Assad, which will do nothing.
The Obama administration seems to have done in the Middle East whatever was in the exact opposite of US national interests. In Egypt they pushed a longstanding ally out of power, making way for the Muslim Brotherhood to share power, and increasing the threat to Israel. In Libya, they have intervened in a state where the dictator had been largely cowed and his WMD program dismantled. If Gaddafi survives, and he is likely to, a return to his old terrorist ways cannot be far off. The Libya intervention has exposed NATO as hollow, divided and not even up to the job of handling a very limited operation in a state where the geography makes operations easy. This was the alliance that was supposed to hold off the Soviets? And in Syria, a dictatorship allied with Iran, that supports terrorists, assassinates leaders in Lebanon, has a WMD program, menaces Israel and is a constant threat to regional peace, the administration might get around to saying a mean thing or two about it killing its own people. Eventually.
I am sure this is part of his “reform” policy. Hillary must be very encouraged.
Sorry, but President Obama is only able to perform one major miracle per month; that’s in the SEIU rules. With the principled killing of bin Laden on May 1st (or as claimed here two days earlier) that’s about it for this month. If there is still a problem in Syria come June 1st (or maybe May 29th) sufficiently major to require that sort of thing, he will certainly take advice and consider doing whatever seems useful.
Well, to be the voice of reason (do I have to add that I am not an Obama fan?), if we do something direct against Syria, who is Iran’s ally, then Iran may decide to go to war on their behalf. Directly. We have limited troops in Iraq, highly exposed. Plus, the Iranians are suffering a major split personality that may render them apart, to our greater good. starting a war will unite the factions if not give Ahmadinejad an ace in the whole with the power of the Repub Guards.
Are we suggesting that we should go to war with Iran on this premise of R2P (which is why it is faulty to begin with)?
To quote Churchill: “”You have chosen peace over honor. You shall have neither.”
because come what may Iran is going have its way in the Arabian Peninsula and the final outcome after strangling Europe and causing America much strife will be war.
Can you imagine the media screaming we’d hear if this were Bush?
Now…under Barry…crickets.
None of it makes sense.
So the only conclusion is that there is no strategy at all. We elected a nobody whose only focus was to win elections. That he did and job done. Now he wants to win the next one. That is all there is. Every decision relates to him personally. He already has an impressive list of personal accomplishments. He won the Nobel peace prize for crying out loud.
For such people there is only the next wave of adulation, the rush of adoration is the next high. But every addict knows that further you go each time becomes more about maintaining and less rewarding until you are just going through the motions.
I doubt he will lose the next election. Despite politics American people keep struggling through at our work. Despite disaster in policy the military excels. We do these things because this is our lives and jobs at stake and we do not just stop because of government. So on our backs he will probably get elected.