Our policy towards Syria is embarrassing
By D.J. McGuire | Monday, March 28th, 2011 | International, Policy
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke for the Administration, stating why we’re flattening Libya but doing nothing to help the anti-Assad forces in Syria. The answer is nauseatingly ignorant (Commentary):
There is a different leader in Syria now, many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer
Madame Secretary, one follow up question, please . . .
ARE YOU HIGH?!
This nonsense is mind-boggling on several levels: the current “leader” of Syria’s Ba’athist regime – Bashar Assad – has been in power since Mrs. Clinton was still First Lady (for the mathematically challenged, that’s eleven years ago). Moreover, whatever various “members of Congress of both parties” might say (BTW, if she means Arlen Specter, he was indeed a member of both parties, but he’s not in Congress anymore so he doesn’t count), this “reformer” has done the following since he inherited the job from his bloodthirsty father:
- Turned his country into a haven for the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime
- Allowed his country to be a way-station for the above remnants, al Qaedites, and anyone else looking to kill Americans in Iraq – along with any Iraqis unwilling to succumb to would-be tyrants of Sunni or Shia stripe
- Cement ties with Hezbollah
- Assassinated Lebanon’s elected Prime Minister
- Move heaven and earth to undermine the anti-Syrian majority in Lebanon (successfully as of earlier this year)
This is no “reformer.”
I understand that we have few options when it comes to helping the Syrian people take their country back, but we do have some (Reagan managed to get aid to Solidarity during the 1980s). For this Administration to be so feckless as to claim that Assad – an Iranian stooge and enemy of the United States – as a “reformer” is maddening and embarrassing.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Former candidate for Board of Supervisors in Spotsylvania, current blogger, economics teacher, and long-rumored windbag. There are two causes closest to the heart: steering the country away from the social democratic nonsense that is sinking Europe, and convincing the rest of the "rightosphere" that the NBA really is a joy to watch.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
6 Responses to "Our policy towards Syria is embarrassing"
Translation: Syria has no oil and Obama has no beef with radical Islam nor does he care about democracy in Lebanon, Egypt, Syria etc unless the Muslim Brotherhood has a seat. In addition, Syria was also opposed to the war in Iraq. Now where are the leftists denouncing war for oil in Libya?
DJ – One reason for not getting involved in Syria – would be Iran.
Evidence of the presence of Iranian forces was provided by protesters, who reported that police and soldiers spoke Farsi, the language of Iran, which is a Persian and not an Arab country. Estimates of the number of demonstrators gunned down by Syrian forces ranges from 150 to “several hundred.” The Foreign Ministry source told IDF Army Radio, “Syria is Iranian property, and it is clear that Iran” is trying to protect its investment.
“A destabilized Syria potentially throws the Iranian military base idea out the window,” according to former CBS Middle East correspondent Dean Reynolds. “Syria has been the Lebanese overlord for decades, and Hizbullah has been Iran’s meddlesome pet,” he added. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143155
Jay D,
All the more reason that we should help the Syrian people take their country back – we just need to be shrewd about who we do it.
I use against the Reagan-Poland example. We managed to help Solidarity despite Poland being next door to the Soviet Union. Am I the only person who remembers that?
Are we going to do anything about the people being gunned down by government officials in Yemen or Bahrain? No, because those governments are our allies and disruptions of those countries might impact access to oil.
Valentius is right. Our foreign policy is based on energy and profits, not on humanitariansim or human rights. Parties and presidents change power, but American policy does not.
DJ – I remember Solidarity well. President Reagan gave Moscow early & clear warning the US wouldn’t be as nonresistant to a Soviet invasion as when tanks rolled into Hungary & Czechoslovakia. I also remember President Reagan did NOT send planes or troops; he DID form a covert alliance with Pope John Paul and together they used Solidarity to bring down communist Poland … and eventually the entire Soviet bloc. But Syria isn’t anywhere close to Poland in the 1980’s. I don’t see similarities (you see) between the two.
Syria (and Bahrain) have liabilities Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya do not – Sunni vs. Shia complications plus Iranian influence and support. Syria’s Sunni majority is ruled by Assad’s minority Shiite. Syrian security forces are Alawite Shiite (Assad’s sect) but Assad also has very strong alliances with Sunni business elite.
A weaker Syria reduces Iran’s regional opportunities and influence. However that potential positive comes with a risky downside – an unstable Syria presents significant risks to Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, and the peace process. “Regime change” in Syria could easily morph into a Sunni-led government more radical and Islamist than the Assad regime– a risk likely at the heart of this administration’s caution with Syrian actions.
Oil is always part of any conversation about this region, but as regards Syria … it’s a potentially more isolated Israel, not oil, that is cause for the pause (IMO).
I’m with former Reagan adviser Gov. Mitch Daniels on these questions –partisanship stops at the water’s edge. I’m not willing to 2nd guess the president or the administration just because he’s a democrat.
P.S. As expected, Hillary tried to fix her misstep today with a ‘clarification’.
Leave your response