the reasoning here seems specious to me.
oil?? where did libya sell its oil? answer: mostly europe, mostly
through italy. we already saw postings on that (i sent them), and that
hasn't changed, won't change a whit. and why should it? if it sold its
oil to another region, that would free up other oil sellers to sell to
locations where libya had sold it. so the equation, arab country with
oil = location for intervention, seems too simplistic. same logic with
afghanistan, oilless country, no real strategic worth, but tons of
political capital invested.
syria: no substantial military uprising; no army defectors mounting a
campaign which a nato could support. from the time of bosnia on clinton
established the principle, intervene from the air, no boots on the
ground. if britain wants boots, sent in your special ops forces to
sierra leone. small numbers; france, same thing in cote d'ivoire. but
the american ideal now is, let them fight for us, and ideally only from
the air so that there are no casualties that have to be explained.
if that means a dictator has his way in syria, so be it. the political
capital expended in trying to explain the risk in putting american boots
in danger would be too high. this was clinton's reasoning in rwanda;
bush's reasoning in sierra leone.
it took 9/11 to change that for afghanistan and iraq, but there is no
9/11 for syria.
as for the un resolution, nato doesn't need it to act; it just makes the
political capital less costly
ken
On 11/2/11 10:19 AM, Cornelius Hamelberg wrote:wher
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/02/signal-nato-libya-intervention/
>
> The Real Signal Sent by NATO's Libyan Intervention
> Evelyn Gordon | @evelyng1234 11.02.2011 - 10:09 AM
>
> NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen proudly declared this
> week that "What has happened in Libya sends a clear signal to
> autocratic regimes all over the world — you cannot neglect the will of
> the people." That might have been true, had he not declared in the
> very same breath that NATO's military intervention in Libya would
> under no circumstances be replicated in Syria. "I can completely rule
> that out," he said. In light of that corollary, here is how autocratic
> regimes – and many ordinary people worldwide – will actually interpret
> the "clear signal" sent by events in Libya:
>
> First, you're much better off being friends with Russia and China than
> the West. Almost two decades ago, Muammar Qaddafi decided to start
> courting the West: He paid billions of dollars in compensation to
> victims of various terror attacks allegedly perpetrated by Libya, most
> notably the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, and
> dismantled his nuclear program. Syria, in contrast, repeatedly thumbed
> its nose at the West while courting Russia and China.
>
> The result: Western countries sought and obtained a UN Security
> Council mandate to intervene militarily in Libya and ultimately
> toppled Qaddafi's government. But Russia and China vetoed even far
> milder resolutions targeting Syria. And since the West refuses to act
> without a UN mandate, Syria is safe from any Western military threat.
>
> Second, joining the radical Islamic camp led by Iran is a good
> investment. Libya posed no military threat whatsoever to the West, nor
> did it have any allies who did. But Syria is backed by Iran, with its
> proven willingness and ability to make mischief for Western interests
> in the Gulf and to foment terror overseas, most notably by means of
> Hezbollah. The West has repeatedly shown its reluctance to confront
> Tehran, even when, for instance, intelligence estimates deemed Iran
> responsible for more American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan than
> Sunni radicals were. And since intervention in Syria almost certainly
> would trigger conflict with Syria's Iranian patron, the West isn't
> interested.
>
> Corollary: The West really is a paper tiger, just as Iran, Al-Qaida
> and other radical Islamists have always claimed. It's perfectly
> willing to attack comparatively defenseless Libya, but avoids taking
> on countries capable of striking back.
>
> Third, the West really does care about nothing but oil. If you
> discount oil – of which Libya has a lot and Syria very little – it's
> hard to explain why the West intervened in Libya but not Syria. You
> certainly can't explain it on humanitarian grounds; Bashar Assad's
> regime has been killing, torturing and jailing its own citizens with
> Qaddafi-style abandon ever since Syria's uprising began in March. And
> from a strategic perspective, Syria is by far the more important
> country: Libya has no strategic significance whatsoever for the West,
> whereas regime change in Syria would deprive Iran of a key ally and
> sever its land bridge to Hezbollah.
>
> If the West doesn't understand that this is how much of the world will
> interpret its behavior, that is deeply disturbing. And if it knows
> about it, but doesn't care , that is even more disturbing.
>
--
kenneth w. harrow
distinguished professor of english
michigan state university
department of english
east lansing, mi 48824-1036
ph. 517 803 8839
harrow@msu.edu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment