Dueling Obamas

All puns aside…Why are we waiting? Why are we waiting for more innocent people to be killed by tanks, attack helicopters (from Russia with love), and artillery strikes? I just don’t get it. President Obama needs to step up to the plate, as we did in Libya, form a coalition, and take out the Assad warfare machine. There, I said it, and I refuse to take it back…. because I mean it. Yes, this Liberal just advocated for going to war with Syria.

And let me tell you why…

It is estimated, to date the Assad regime, during their "crackdown", has killed over 10,000 people. Of those 10,000 (yes I wrote it again for emphasis), 500 of them were children. CHILDREN! Over 40,000 people are missing or imprisoned by the Assad Regime. They have literally disappeared without explanation. What is going on in the world when we allow this to happen? What about the cease-fire that was signed in December of 2011? Why are Syrian soldiers still out killing at will? They massacred an entire village of 108 people in May, were caught shooting at U.N. observers last week, and now they are reportedly using children as human shields. All of this violence and torture and the killing of innocent children, all of this, and yet Assad only gets sanctions in return… As we can all see, sanctions don’t save lives, they simply make dictators like Assad fight that much harder to hold onto to the only thing they have left. Power.

Don’t get me wrong, sanctions are not a bad bargaining chip, but it takes much bigger countries with larger economies for the concept to really be effective. This is why President Obama should forget about sanctions with Syria, and move right into Libya Deux.

Okay, okay so I understand Russia is playing sides, and Putin likes to flex his muscles at every opportunity(literally, just google it). A Russian general even announced that his country had shipped missile defense systems to Syria, which taken at face value is definitely disturbing. But the bottom line is not only does Assad need to be relieved of duty, but we cannot allow other powers to dictate to us who and when to help. Look, thanks to globalization, none of the world’s super powers, i.e., USA, Russia, China, Japan, France, UK, and Germany, none of these countries can risk alienation, or their economies will literally shatter. Each is dependant on the other for everything from money, to technology, to precious metals and minerals, to services, etc. That is how economics work in today’s world and that means countries who stand in the way of doing what is right, do so at their own economic peril.

Here is where sanctions work Mr. President(outlaw babushka dolls). We all saw how well Russia did on it’s own during the cold war…..Anyway, I am definitely not advocating war with Russia, you see, because I like the world, and I am allergic to nuclear radiation. But Putin is smart. He understands the dynamics of economic globalization better then most. Russia will not intervene on Syria’s behalf. They can sell their weapons to other countries just as easily and with much less fuss.

And I am not advocating a ground war in Syria.

What we will need to do is send in drones and stealth bombers to take out their radar, ground-to-air, and other military installations. We will need to create a no-fly zone. We also need to arm the rebels, as we did in Libya, and give them a little training. Food and aid never hurts either. We may need to fire some missiles. We may need to put in an effort. And we may even find weapons of mass destruction for real this time.

All I am saying is if we can stop the killing of innocents, then we have accomplished something. And if we can halt Syria’s ability for nuclear proliferation at the same time, then the world (Israel) is a safer place. I definitely don’t want the U.S. to get back into the nation building business, I merely want the to help the Syrian people hit reset on a broken system. But let’s face it, Syria has been a rogue nation in everything but name for a long time. And like Iran, they have been working on their own secret nuclear program for years. Leaving that program in the hands of a proven murderer is not a good thing.

I have heard it said that what happened in Libya is nothing like Syria. But in my estimation, they are very similar. The Libyan Transitional National Council and The Syrian National Council are alike in many ways. Both were/are marred by infighting and alternate visions. Both were/are loose knit and prone to violence. But the fact is they are rebel alliances (Insert Star Wars reference here), who have seen more horrors in a year then most American’s see their entire lives. These are people who just want to be treated like, well, like people. Yes it’s true that some of them are probably shady characters. Yes, some might want to impose Sharia Law. Some might be former or current terrorists. But throughout the Middle East, this has been and will continue to be a problem. Still, these terrorists are nothing when compared to the millions upon millions who want the basic rights every human on this planet is due; and I doubt they want to throw off one yoke and replace it with another. I could be wrong. I have been before, it’s true. And yet, I don’t think I am. Why? Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and (insert name here) depending on which one of the 7 other countries experiencing major uprisings goes next.

Yes, I know there are more dynamics at work here then in those countries I listed. The most important of which is the fact that the majority of Syrian’s are Sunni, and are dominated by a militarily adept ruling minority called Alawites (Shiites). They run Syria with an iron fist. There are also the large swaths of Christians and ethnic Kurds that have been stepped on by the ruling religious minority as well. You see, the Alawites only account 12% of the Syrian nation’s 22,500,000 people. So the other 88% of the population (+/- 3% for accuracy) are a repressed people. This has caused inter-tribal strife and has pushed old hatreds to the forefront as the "crackdown" continues. People who have nothing to do with the fighting, are being targeted on both sides, harassed and beaten, all based on tribe, religion, and blood. All this is just another reason we should step in now, Mr. President. Because once this powder keg we call Syria truly explodes, we could see ethnic cleansing on par with Kosovo and Rwanda...and I don’t think anyone wants that.

I can’t predict the future, but at this point in time, I can say that their country would be better off without Assad. And most of the population knows it. Look across the Middle East. Change has come. The Arab Spring. Whether it will be good or bad, or more of the same, no one can say. But when people strive to be more, to have rights, to be respected, then it is our duty to help them.

Not just as Americans, but as humans.

Excuse some of the dark humor littered throughout this piece. It is merely my attempt at putting everything in perspective. Like, why do we even have to have this discussion while people are dying for freedoms they have never known. Freedoms most American’s, like me, have taken for granted time and again.

It’s like standing next to a pool and there is someone drowning, but they are within your reach of saving. You have never met this person before. You don’t know this person from a hole in the wall. And yet, most, if not all of us, would reach our hand out to help them. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

Syria is drowning, Mr. President…in blood…and they need a helping hand…

--Babbalon

Intervening directly in Syria is an impossible mission with virtually no possibility of success. What the Government of Syria is doing to its own people is abhorrent and barbarian. Yet, as deplorable as the situation is, there is no clear path for the US to unilaterally intervene and no clear opposition group to support.

We have to learn from our recent history that jumping into military conflicts in the Islamic World without clearly defined goals, strategies, allies, mission and end-game is not just futile; it can be lethal. Will intervening mean a cessation to hostilities? Unlikely! We learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that the militias and other pro-Government forces will simply change tactics. They will turn to roadside bombs, suicide bombers and sneak attacks. We do not have the ability to tell friend from foe in this conflict. The more troops we insert the more targets we provide for the militias and goon squads. In fact, our presence invites Iran to send even more support to the Syrian Government.

How do we intervene? Do we arm the opposition no matter who they are? If we start handing out weapons to whoever asks, we may be arming Islamic fundamentalist who want to use the weapons against us. Would we be arming a group that will seize control of the Government and be as bad, or worse, than the current regime? Or will the weapons simply pass over to the existing regime when they take them away from the rebels. Without some clear understanding of who we would be backing, arming the opposition is extremely risky.

We could bomb like we did in Libya? In Libya our bombing did a lot of good but it also killed a lot of non-combatants and we left a dysfunctional society in our wake. After more than a year since toppling the Libyan government there is still civil war as factions (including Islamic extremists) are vying for power. The situation is similar in Egypt where the US did not get directly involved.

Syria is the same size as the State of Washington but with a population equal to the State of New York. Where can we effectively bomb without risking thousands of innocent lives? Killing non-combatants is not only morally unacceptable; it will further destroy our image and effectiveness in the Middle East. How do we control the post-bombing chaos?

Where do we get allies and support for intervention? Unilateral intervention by the US adds to the image of us as the Great Satan and creates the fear through the Islamic World that we will continue to use military intervention to make the Arab states bend to our wishes. If the Saudis, Kuwaitis, Jordanians and others specifically request our help and will work with us, the fear of intervention would be lessened. If the Gulf Cooperation Council comes to us with a plan and their commitment to be involved, we might be able to show we are working in concert with Islamic allies. But that has not happened yet and it is unlikely to happen.

What would be the US mission in an intervention? We could stop some of the open aggression but unless we put substantial boots on the ground we cannot stop all of the violence. And if the Government does fall, how much responsibility do we assume for rebuilding the nation. We have spent trillions in Afghanistan and Iraq to try to rebuild those countries and it has nearly bankrupted us. We are in no position to try to rebuild yet another Middle Eastern country.

If we do intervene how do we get out? If we simply bomb and get out, we leave behind us a country in chaos that could easily fall under the domination of Iran. If we try to undertake a full intervention we run straight into the resistance of China and Russia who would love to see us entangle ourselves in yet another debacle in the Middle East.

The US cannot undertake a military intervention in Syria without the backing of the Gulf Cooperation Council, without the full backing of the UN and without the cooperation of China and Russia. And even then, it would have to be a limited commitment with Arab allies putting their ground troops into the mandatory policing role. It would also be necessary for our Arab allies to commit to establishing a new Government and rebuilding the infrastructure destroyed by our intervention. Without these conditions we would be undertaking another unlimited commitment to nation building in an Islamic country and all the associated costs of doing that both in lives and money.

--BigJimWest

OBAMA1...

SYRIA