Inkwell Institute
Middle East Desk
That is the excuse that was given for the entry of the US into the actions against Libya….Qaddahfi said that he would kill everyone who opposed him in the town of Misrata…..that promise brought the world to the decision that NATO must take him to task and prevent a humanitarian crisis……Now that so many in Washington are stomping their feet for an end to the Libyan action….some, like McCain are still using the humanitarian thing as a reason for continuation of “hostilities”…….
I have asked the same question since the beginning of the Libyan operation……when does a situation become a humanitarian crisis? So far, I have NO definitive explanation. Then I ask, if we are hell bound to intercede in humanitarian crises….why was Rwanda or Sudan not worthy of our intervention? There were actual people killed in those two countries and not just a threat by a despot……..why were these countries ignored?
Now we come to Syria….is it a humanitarian crisis? Over 1,200 people, most of them civilians, have been killed in the violent suppression of protests that began in March, and more than 10,000 have been detained. “widespread human rights violations” included “violated freedoms of assembly, expression and movement”, “excessive use of force in quelling demonstrators, arbitrary detentions, summary executions, torture and other cruel or inhuman treatment”. “Syrian security forces directly blocked the distribution of critical food supplies in certain locations”, depriving Syrians of basic food resources.
When does the Syrian situation become serious enough to be called a Humanitarian crisis? Other than some limited sanctions and a wealth of lip service. I think we all would like to hear the real story of the problems in Syria and just what are the plans…….what criteria are they using to determine what is or is not a humanitarian crisis?
Unlike Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Ghadaffi’s Libya, Syria has stronger ties to the rest of the Arab world, especially amongst our so-called allies in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Each confrontation in the mideast has to and should be weighed in terms of how will the region react if we intercede. I’m sure signals are being sent to U.S. envoys that they are playing with fire if they invade Syria.
There is of course the economic factor of oil resources which Syria has none as Rwanda and Sudan did not. But I think that would factor in more under a conservative administration like Bush/Cheney.
Larry, you have given a perfect explanation…..glad to see someone is paying attention. The oil thing is more to the point than any one analyzing on the tube……humanitarian crisis is so much crap….it is an excuse not a reason…….thanx for paying attention…..
LB DIDN’T say it was all about oil as you seem to suggest, if I’ve read it right. It IS a factor and so should it be to some extent – the West has a right to attempt to protect its own best interests where it can.
Nevertheless, what would you have us do? Go in to Syria and get beaten to a pulp when we find ourselves at war with the whole f*cking Arab world?
That, though, doesn’t mean we should do nothing when and where we CAN do something, as in Libya.
However, you should be pleased today since Obama is about to announce how the US will once again crap on its allies (like for instance the UK) in Afghanistan, by unilaterally pulling out for political reasona and against the advice of your own military commanders on the ground…
It isn’t just what lbwoodgate said; there are other reasons as well.
The main one, for sure, is that there is no oil in Syria to save from a bloodthirsty tyrant. But there’s also the matter of Syria having a credible deterrent to any Western action. We’ll leave Syria alone for the same reason we leave North Korea alone. Bullies seldom like to get bloodied.
Hiya Jolly…….what you say is true….but I think there is an Israel thing there also…..
I think it’s a bit more than bloodied – we’d get SCREWED completely and LOSE!