What does the USA get out of the escalation of its involvement in the Syrian conflict?
Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?
Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help? These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values. Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria. There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks. These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy. The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban. Is this really what America wants?
Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so. How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance? Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it? Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away? How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?
What is the end game here? Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.
The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected. The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.
In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels. The upshot? The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed. Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country.
The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing. The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability. Does Obama hate Israel that much?
And then there is Turkey. Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted. Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.
Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong. You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted. Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week. The French were saying these weeks ago. OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ... Or is that just me being cynical?
Okay, so the immediate effect is to distract Americans from the scandals that are swirling around the Obama administration - the IRS targeting of non-Left wing organizations, the Benghazi US consulate attack and the NSA domestic spying furore. - but what else?
Syria's Assad comes from a long line of unsavory, undemocratic and murderous dictators but does America really believe that providing arms to the 'rebels' will actually help? These 'rebels' are not exactly stalwarts of the democratic school of government nor are they exactly upholders of other 'western' values. Many of them are jihadists who want to promote a sharia based orthodoxy on Syria. There are also Al Qaeda affiliated groups within their ranks. These groups are already massacring Christians in the areas that they occupy. The secular Syrian state is in danger of becoming a Middle Eastern Afghanistan, with these new groups being the Arab equivalent of the Taliban. Is this really what America wants?
Think forward a little, because the 'wise heads' of the Obama administration seem to have failed to do so. How will the toppling of Assad and his replacement by a fundamentalist government affect the regional geo-political balance? Do we really think that Israel would be happy to have a terrorist government on its doorstep, because it worked out really well, with Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon, didn't it? Could another Arab-Israeli war be far away? How would Iran view this, given its prior support for the Assad's rule (as a tit for tat for allowing Iran to supply Hezbollah, via Syria)?
What is the end game here? Other than the immediate media diversion tactic, that is.
The US withdrew support for Mubarak in Egypt and in the ensuing elections, Morsi from the Muslim Brotherhood was elected. The MB is another radical and fundamentalist organization and they too are promoting a policy of 'relgious cleansing' with the repeated attacks on Coptic Christians.
In Libya, the US stood by and let it's UK and French proxies provide the support for the rebels. The upshot? The US consulate in Benghazi was attacked on September 11, 2012 (the date must have been a coincidence, surely??) and the US Ambassador to Libya and three others were killed. Libya is now in real danger of fragmenting or falling into civil war as the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb groups foment dissent and promote attacks on the Libyan government and armed groups refuse to hand over arms and effectively control parts of the country.
The Iranian nuclear threat grows every day and yet Obama's 'positive engagement' has produced nothing. The Iranians (how long before they re-style themselves as Persians and seek to re-create the Persian Empire?) have used Obama's naivety to continue development of a nuclear military capability. Does Obama hate Israel that much?
And then there is Turkey. Strangely the protests against the police (and military?) suppression of the recent unrest, from both the EU and the US have been very muted. Erdogan's regime remember is pushing a very fundamentalist doctrine in Turkey.
Oh, and those people who still blindly follow Obama ad believe he can do no wrong. You will no doubt (rightly) say that the use of chemical weapons against a civilian population was a red line the crossing of which, could not be accepted. Maybe that's so but , the line was crossed long before this week. The French were saying these weeks ago. OK, so Obama didn't have these other things (IRS and NSA) bubbling away at that time but ... Or is that just me being cynical?
No comments:
Post a Comment