An important story that has been lost in the recent news cycle is quickly regaining substantial media attention. For the past few months, the Syrian people have been engaged in what is perhaps the most painful and shocking anti-government uprising of the Arab Spring. Like many Middle Easterners, the people of Syria began protesting against their despotic government soon after Egyptians removed Hosni Mubarak from power, and Libyans began to take up arms against Muammar Gadhafi. And like the protesters in those two nations, Syrians who flooded their city streets were quickly greeted with violence and brutality. However, the government-sponsored oppression in Syria has made the sickening actions taken Hosni Mubarak and Muammar Gadhafi look almost merciful in comparison. Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad, has made his intention to stay in power perfectly clear, regardless of local or international pressure to step down. The steps Assad has taken to preserve his authoritarian rule have been horrific, nihilistic, and limitless. Protesters have been shot dead in the streets. Children have been kidnapped and tortured. Anti-Assad cities such as Daraa and Jisr ash-Shugur have come under attack from tanks and helicopters. Food, water, and electricity have been taken away from those who dared to defy Assad's regime. Mass detention centers have been set up in stadiums.
Without a doubt, the Assad regime has taken political oppression to a whole new level in the 2011 uprisings, a feat that seemed impossible when Gadhafi had sunken to the level of launching sniper attacks on funerals back in March. However, unlike the situation Libya there has been no intervention by the United States in Syria. To the casual observer, that may be a bit baffling. After all, the situations in Libya and Syria are quite similar. Both involve peaceful demonstrators being met with extreme violence. Both began to become a major concern in mid-March of this year. Most importantly, both Gadhafi and Assad are fervently anti-American, and have been for quite some time. The violence in Syria has no end in sight either. In fact, it has been getting substantially worse in recent days. A report on CNN.com, written today, indicates that Assad stepped up his attacks on anti-government cities yesterday in order to prevent Ramadan prayer gatherings from turning into political rallies. According to the report, at least 24 people were killed across five cities yesterday, though that number could be higher. Close to 2,000 people in total have been killed since Assad's crackdown began.
So why has the U.S. intervened in Libya, but not in Syria? Well, there are a few reasons. Firstly, the U.S. could not play a "support" role against Assad's forces. That is because the Syrian people have not taken up an armed resistance, something that the Libyans have done (albeit loosely organized, and not very successful, and polluted with Islamic extremists). So whereas the U.S. has simply carried out air and missile strikes in Libya, intervention in Syria would probably mean ground troops, an action that is out of the question for a war weary nation. The U.S. isn't going to do the heavy lifting for the Syrians when the military is already stretched thin.
Secondly, getting involved in Syria could spark a much wider and dangerous conflict that would involve Iran and Hezbollah. Over the past 10 years or so, Syria and Iran have relatively close allies. It is what foreign policy expert Scott Lasensky calls "a marriage of convenience". On paper, the two nations should technically be enemies. Iran is made up of Persians. Syria is made up of Arabs. Iran is a largely Shiite country, while Syria is a largely Sunni country. However, the two nations saw a mutual benefit in forming an alliance with each other in order to defend themselves from potential attacks by the United States and Israel. So a humanitarian mission in Syria would mean a war with Iran. Definitely not something that we want to get ourselves into. Hezbollah, the Islamic political/military organization in Lebanon, would also get into the fray. Hezbollah is heavily funded and supported by both Syria and Iran, so they would give us problems too. Long story short, intervening in Syria would probably instigate a wide-ranging regional conflict. The costs would certainly outweigh the benefits.
Libya, on the other hand, was and still is a completely different scenario. Gadhafi has always been a highly unpopular figure in the Middle East, particularly with radical Islamist leaders. He is also despised by Europe and the people United States. Therefore, intervening in Libya came at little consequence to the U.S. Gadhafi was evil, the rest of the world hated him, and nobody would criticize us if we decided to attack him and his forces. The decision was a no-brainer for President Obama, who needed to shore up his "toughness" image.
Another reason why the U.S. is not intervening in Syria is because another country may do so soon. That country is none other than Turkey, the pro-Western, anti radical Muslim nation. Turkey has a vested interest in removing the Assad regime from power. Turkey, which is located along Syria's northern border, has been receiving the brunt of refugees who are trying to flee from Assad's iron fist. With the instability creeping closer and closer towards the Syria-Turkey border, a conflict between the two nations may very well be inevitable. The Turkish government has been very vocal in condemning the Syrian government's actions, and there have indeed been rumblings that the Turks are considering military action against Assad and his fighters. If that is the case, the U.S. is probably hoping that Turkey will take the lead for a change, and dispose of the tyrannical trash that is brutalizing innocent civilians.
However, the biggest and most unfortunate reason that the U.S. views Syria differently than Libya comes down to one, three-lettered word: OIL. Libya has it, and Syria doesn't. Libya is one of the world's leading oil producers. They have the 9th largest oil reserves in the world. Syria, on the other hand, doesn't even make it into the top 20. And while the United States doesn't import much of its oil from Libya, European nations such as Italy and France do. Thus explaining why France was so eager to take the lead in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya soon after the civil war erupted. If Gadhafi's madness had gone any farther, oil markets could have been affected. So in the end, Libya has resources and Syria doesn't. That is how world governments view human life, and the Syrians are shit out of luck on that front. It's a sad, sick fact, but it's the truth. If Libya didn't have the "black gold", the world's superpowers probably would've ignored the genocide there too. Hell, look at Sudan. Hundreds of thousands dead. No resources. Not a single foot solider on the ground (U.N. Peacekeepers don't count. A mall cop could overpower those grunts).
Now, don't get me wrong: I don't favor intervention in any of these countries. I'm highly sympathetic towards the protesters and rebels who are truly fighting for their rights, but the time has come for the United States to stop policing the world. We have seen enough unnecessary wars in the post World War II world. By writing this article, I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy in President Obama's foreign policy. He claims to support the pro-democracy protests in every country, but in reality he picks and chooses what protesters to support or ignore, based mainly on the value of material goods and the not the value of human life.
Libya? Support them, they've got oil
Egypt? Support them, they've got the Suez Canal
Bahrain? Ignore them, Bahrain's Royal Family lets us dock our warships there
Saudi Arabia? Ignore them, they've got oil
Syria, Ignore them, because they have nothing
While I can understand this unfortunate position, it's just plain stupid for us to characterize our foreign policy as being a black-and-white thing, when it's one big grey area. We'd be better off if we would stop masquerading as the "Dudley Do-Right" of the world, and switch to a non-interventionist policy. World affairs are fascinating, but we don't always have to be in the middle of them.
The United States should always speak out against tyranny, but we don't always have to follow up our words with bombs. In many ways, words speak louder than actions, and I think the U.S. would gain more respect around the world if we followed this policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment