Why is the US ignoring the violence in Syria while intervening in Libya?

[Angry Citizen]

Transliterations are traditionally held to be at the whim of the interpreter, so long as it's an accurate reflection of the original text in terms of phonetics. I personally prefer Qaddafi just to stick it to my 1st grade teacher who said you can't have a Q without a U following it.

 

[MarcoD]

Libya: No constitution, no government, no taxes!, anti-Islam, anti-Arab, pro-African, an army of 25k. Just a bunch of cities/regions lead by revolutionary councils.

Syria: A dictatorial socialist Islamic state, big government, strong Arabic ties, no hostile intentions (for the last decade) towards Israel, a 400k ground/tank army next to Turkey and Israel.

Nobody cares about the oil of Libya. EU is mostly worried about African immigration coming trough that region, maybe fishing for some development contracts, probably hoping for an exemplary mixed secular Islamic modern democratic state. And it was one of the few cases where being morally right wasn't a bad choice.

Messing with Syria is a totally different ball game. Chances are just too big you blow up the whole region.

(Addendum. I should have said: Oil is a less important factor than most assume. If it would be about oil, the EU/US might as well have backed Qaddafi, or have send in ground troops to secure the region. Oil will come in either way, whoever runs the country.)

 

[rootX]

Libya: No constitution, no government, no taxes!, anti-Islam, anti-Arab, pro-African, an army of 25k. Just a bunch of cities/regions lead by revolutionary councils.

Syria: A dictatorial socialist Islamic state, big government, strong Arabic ties, no hostile intentions (for the last decade) towards Israel, a 400k ground/tank army next to Turkey and Israel.

Nobody cares about the oil of Libya. EU is mostly worried about African immigration coming trough that region, maybe fishing for some development contracts, probably hoping for an exemplary mixed secular Islamic modern democratic state. And it was one of the few cases where being morally right wasn't a bad choice.

Messing with Syria is a totally different ball game. Chances are just too big you blow up the whole region.

(Addendum. I should have said: Oil is a less important factor than most assume. If it would be about oil, the EU/US might as well have backed Qaddafi, or have send in ground troops to secure the region. Oil will come in either way, whoever runs the country.)

BBC analysis recently said things have changed in Syria from the periods of last rebellion which happened during the Assad's father rule. I will try my best to find the article.

A related article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13193210 from 26 April 2011

 

[estro]

I've been thinking about starting this thread for almost a week, as the intensity of the situation in Syria has been increasing. The silence from the world community regarding Syria is deafening. Hence, the question in the title...and from a CNN headline of a similar wording: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/26/u.s..libya.syria/index.html?hpt=C1

In semi-fairness to Obama, he's not the only one ignoring Syria: the UN hasn't made a peep about the situation either.

So what's different?

1. Oil. Syria doesn't have any.
2. Despite the way it has been characterized internationally, Libya is a civil war whereas in Syria, the government is just killing civilians. From a moral standpoint that makes the situation in Syria worse, but from a practical standpoint, there isn't an opposition force for our military to support. In Libya, we say we're there to protect civilians, but we're not: we're there to support the opposition in the civil war.
3. Dissent or not, Syria is the center of the terrorist hornet's nest and the general Islamic extremist movement in the ME. So the anti-west reaction would be a lot worse if we were to intervene there.

Are these good reasons not to at least talk about it on the floor of the UN? IMO, no.

So you know the reason:
1. Oil prices.
2. Double standarts of Europe.

 

[MarcoD]

So you know the reason:
1. Oil prices.
2. Double standards of Europe.

Hmpf. Oil prices are just one of many, many reasons and what double standards of the thousands of factions of the about fifty nations in Europe are you addressing? Too simplistic.

 

[estro]

In Libya it wasn't a struggle of civilians against armed forces but a fight between 2 armed armies. It was a civil war.
On the other hand in Siria, Asad slaughters unarmed civilians.

If anything military intervention should be done in Siria.
Europe never cared about human rights, all they want is cheap oil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14829835

 

[Proton Soup]

In Libya it wasn't a struggle of civilians against armed forces but a fight between 2 armed armies. It was a civil war.
On the other hand in Siria, Asad slaughters unarmed civilians.

If anything military intervention should be done in Siria.
Europe never cared about human rights, all they want is cheap oil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14829835

i'm not sure i'd even classify libya as a civil war. a doomed insurgency, perhaps, but they were never capable of winning. NATO fought Gaddafi, and NATO won (well, mostly won, he's still out there). i would have liked to have seen them put up more of a fight, but as i followed the conflict in Russ's other Libya thread, it soon became clear that the rebels were never more than window-dressing. the conflict seems more like a small Iraq to me.

 

[MarcoD]

In Libya it wasn't a struggle of civilians against armed forces but a fight between 2 armed armies. It was a civil war.
On the other hand in Siria, Asad slaughters unarmed civilians.

If anything military intervention should be done in Siria.

What do you want? We have little right to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. In order to protect these civilians NATO would need to dismantle the entire state, which would mean an outright full-blown war with ground forces. An approach like that has never worked. NATO isn't loved in those parts of the world, it would just mean a complete mess for decades.

As an Israeli, I don't even understand you propose it. Even implementing a democratic state, which I want too, might mean a Sirian/Israel war within five years. (Which is a risk the majority of the EU probably will take once it comes to a Libyan type scenario.)

Europe never cared about human rights, all they want is cheap oil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14829835

Libya produces a little 2% of the world's oil, which they'll need to produce anyway to pay for their means of living. The EU has an interest that oil keeps flowing, that's about it. Whoever is there is payed anyway. Not everything is always totally about oil.

 

[estro]

...
We have little right to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
...

You got it!
This is what I wanted to hear.

 

[MarcoD]

You got it!
This is what I wanted to hear.

Hmm. I thought that was obvious. At least in Libya we were sure we were invited by a substantial part of the population to help them against a dictatorial regime. In Syria, we don't know anything, and we don't even know whether the current protesters even would want NATO to interfere with anything. There isn't even a legal body which could rightfully claim to talk for the majority of the Syrian public.

 

[estro]

I know that they run for their lives to the Israeli border, so I guess they will note care...

 

[MarcoD]

I know that they run for their lives to the Israeli border, so I guess they will note care...

Man, I find it awful too. But I think any NATO involvement will probably mean Hezbollah or some other party will hijack the war within two hours of arriving on Syrian soil, and change it into a second West Bank conflict. I don't think Europe or NATO can do anything there except for mess up the whole situation and change it into a conflict between Europe and the Arab world. Unless all nations bordering that conflict and a good deal of the Syrian population call out for an intervention, it's up to the Arabs there.

(My two cents, and the acknowledgment I am just as big an idiot on these things as everyone.)

 

[mheslep]

Some reminders that something is known about what's going on in Syria:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/04/26/syria.unrest/index.html?hpt=T1"

Jaafari's remarks came on the same day that the Syrian Human Rights Information Link reported that more than 400 people have died since March 18 in incidents linked to the government crackdown on protesters seeking reform. ...

The United Nations has said it has information that 76 people were killed last week on Friday alone, apparently during peaceful marches, and that the death toll from that day could be much higher

"[URL
[/URL]

Government forces shelled civilian districts in the central city of Hama for a second day

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/syrian-security-forces-kill-10-protesters-before-visit-by-arab-league-head.html"

Syrian security forces killed at least 15 protesters before a planned visit to Damascus by the head of the 22-member state Arab League for talks on the six months of conflict in the nation.
Demonstrators were killed yesterday in the central city of Homs and the northern province of Idlib, according to Mahmoud Merhi, head of the Arab Organization for Human Rights. Security forces also carried out a “major assault” yesterday on the town of Nawa, near the southern province of Daraa where the uprising began in March, Merhi said by phone today.

"[URL Count of Syria Dead Now at 2,600
[/URL]

 

[Proton Soup]

I know that they run for their lives to the Israeli border, so I guess they will note care...

no, they get shot at when they run to the israeli border. they run for their lives to the turkish border. turkey now has about 10,000 refugees from syria.

 

[klimatos]

Are these good reasons not to at least talk about it on the floor of the UN? IMO, no.

One reason might be that very few UN members could come the discussion with clean hands, and Syria would be quick to point that out. Almost all countries have histories of killing their own citizens from time to time. Some, of course, more often or more recently than others.

A second reason might be that Israel prefers the existing Syrian government to what might conceivably replace it.

A third reason is that doing anything effective (as opposed to just talking about it) would be tremendously expensive in lives and wealth. So why talk about it if you're not going to do anything about it.

By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.

 

[klimatos]

How do you spell باتريشيا ومقتضب - the "Libyan Strongman"?

Qaddafi, Gadhafi. Gaddafi, Khaddify, Kadhafi - or doesn't anyone really care?

It all depends upon which transliteration system you use. The Arabic language contains sounds that are not represented by letters in the English language. (and vice-versa. The Semitic languages have no "j" sound, as in John, Jesus, etc.). Most media have a stylebook that they use for such transliterations. Consequently, what spelling you see depends upon what media is doing the presentation.

 

[WhoWee]

It all depends upon which transliteration system you use. The Arabic language contains sounds that are not represented by letters in the English language. (and vice-versa. The Semitic languages have no "j" sound, as in John, Jesus, etc.). Most media have a stylebook that they use for such transliterations. Consequently, what spelling you see depends upon what media is doing the presentation.

I've recently noticed a variety of spellings offered on individual cable networks throughout the day - seems to depend upon the location reporting?

 

[MarcoD]

One reason might be that very few UN members could come the discussion with clean hands, and Syria would be quick to point that out. Almost all countries have histories of killing their own citizens from time to time. Some, of course, more often or more recently than others.

A second reason might be that Israel prefers the existing Syrian government to what might conceivably replace it.

A third reason is that doing anything effective (as opposed to just talking about it) would be tremendously expensive in lives and wealth. So why talk about it if you're not going to do anything about it.

By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.

Since you seem to know a good deal more about these things, I am interested what you would think would be appropriate, or what will happen.

 

[Proton Soup]

By the way, the Arab (English language) Al-Jazeera has been quite vocal in condemning Syria's repression of its citizens--far more so than any Western station.

what is up with that? do you think it could be a fear of annoying russia? of annoying israel? that the time is just not ready to begin the appeal to the public? or a lack of interests (oil)?

 

[klimatos]

Since you seem to know a good deal more about these things, I am interested what you would think would be appropriate, or what will happen.

What is "appropriate" depends upon your value system. Mine says "hands off" until there is some real benefit to the American people in doing otherwise.

As to "what will happen", I have no prophetic skills. I suspect that the American news media will eventually lose interest--much as they have done with famine in black Africa.

 

[mheslep]

Would the no action "until there's a real benefit" rule apply to the US in the presence of a 1940 Nazi Germany?

 

[DoggerDan]

In Libya, we say we're there to protect civilians, but we're not: we're there to support the opposition in the civil war.

I think that's the main reason. Additional ones may be that we've wanted Qaddafi out since Lockerby, but have had somewhat better relations with Syrian's head honchos.

 

[klimatos]

Would the no action "until there's a real benefit" rule apply to the US in the presence of a 1940 Nazi Germany?

Since I was alive, politically alert, and an avid reader at the outbreak of WWII, I can speak to that question from experience. At the onset of the Nazi attacks, the vast majority of the U. S. people wanted nothing whatsoever to do with the war in Europe. Nazi sympathizers from Lindbergh on down were were very vocal. Marches and assemblies by the German-American Bund were well attended. Jews were not admitted to most American country clubs, and were even denied lodging at many upscale hotels (see the old movie "Gentleman's Agreement", with Gregory Peck). FDR's warnings about Nazi intentions went largely unheeded. His "lend-lease" program to supply Britain was generally unpopular.

It wasn't until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, that U. S. opinion began to change, and even then there were many who wanted us to fight the Japanese and leave Europe to its own defense.

Please don't take my word for this. Read any good book on the U. S. entry into WWII.

 

[mheslep]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story_1.html"

A man who had encapsulated the youthful idealism of syria’s grass-roots protest movement, pioneering the tactic of handing out roses and water to the troops sent to shoot demonstrators, had died in custody. ...“We know how peaceful this guy was, and he was tortured to death, and it shows that if we continue like this, we’ll be treated like anyone who had a gun and was a terrorist,” he said. “Everyone’s really, really angry.”

Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:

“There’s a growing frustration in the streets that a lot of people are being killed and wounded and that they should take up arms,” said the diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive subjects. “This young man understood the importance of the protest movement staying peaceful, even as he was confronting a lot of violence.”

Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277356/limits-gandhi-ism-mark-krikorian"

 

[Proton Soup]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/syrian-activist-ghiyath-matars-death-spurs-grief-debate/2011/09/14/gIQArgq8SK_story_1.html"


Which is tragic. I applaud the US ambassador for attending the victim's funeral ceremonies, but then he says this:
Why? Why must the protest remain peaceful? So Assad can do more of the same and stay in power, so Syria drops off the front page, and the US need do nothing?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277356/limits-gandhi-ism-mark-krikorian"

why? so the people can be controlled, of course. haven't you noticed that they're already trying to disarm the libyan rebels, even while gadaffi is still loose and heaven knows what the new government will be like?

 

[damascus]

I am syrian and had to make acount to share what majority of syrian people think.

We don't want any forein intervention. We don't exactly have America/France/Britain in our harts and consider them as bad, if not worse, than our tyrant.

We consider America to be the number one terrorist state. How do you call killing hundred of thousands of innocent iraqis in a war based on lies, only to control region and oil? We call this terrorism.

Syrian people are well educated about western world imperialism. Please america, for once, mind your own business.

 

[ThomasT]

I am syrian and had to make acount to share what majority of syrian people think.

We don't want any forein intervention. We don't exactly have America/France/Britain in our harts and consider them as bad, if not worse, than our tyrant.

We consider America to be the number one terrorist state. How do you call killing hundred of thousands of innocent iraqis in a war based on lies, only to control region and oil? We call this terrorism.

Syrian people are well educated about western world imperialism. Please america, for once, mind your own business.

I've spoken to a few Iraqi's who've been disposessed, displaced since 2003. They didn't like Sadaam, they didn't like the political situation, but, as they say it, at least they had a life. So, being an American, living in the US for my entire life, I can empathize with this. I certainly wouldn't want a foreign power to invade and occupy my land.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the world at large is not a just or fair place. Whether because of US past deeds or not, the ME is, generally, a hotbed of anti-US antagonism. That's a current fact that the US can't ignore. Plus, there's those vast oil reserves. The US is never, ever, going to just mind its own business.

It's a sort of war on many fronts. And propagandists on both sides will try to spin it in their favor. But, as I see it, it's a confrontation between two quite different ways of life. And while I can empathize with the anger of Arabs and Muslims, I still don't want them to win.