"The Western allies, especially the British and French forces backed up by the United States, can be justly proud. So can Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and President Obama, who ignored the naysayers who claimed that Libya was a quagmire and the battle not worth fighting."
"Backed up by the United States"? Indeed, this was another instance where Obama was "leading from behind," and Obama does not deserve the same credit accorded Cameron and Sarkozy, who entered the fray without knowing whether Obama would assist them. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels could not have overcome Qaddafi's forces without low-flying US AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which pounded Qaddafi's ground troops and supply convoys into submission.
The Times editorial concludes with a question:
"In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointedly told European NATO allies that they risked becoming militarily irrelevant unless they stepped up investment in their forces and equipment. His successor, Leon Panetta, needs to drive that message home.
European leaders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: If it was this hard taking on a ragtag army like Qaddafi’s, what would it be like to have to fight a real enemy?"
Indeed, let's not beat around the bush and ask outright whether Europe could contend with Syria, which in past months has been busy murdering and torturing thousands of its citizens. Unlike the conflagration in Libya, which was primarily tribal in nature, the uprising in Syria represents an attempt by the majority Sunni population to wrest control from the ruling Alawite minority, which dominates the upper echelons of Syria's armed forces and security agencies.
There have been embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again leading from behind, regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU have been delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Syria's economic outlook, dismal even before the insurgency, is buckling under the strain: exports, tourism, trade, manufacturing and foreign investment are all failing (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-syria-economy-idUSTRE77S1W420110829), and the likelihood remains that even without Western intervention, Assad will be forced to depart for Iran.
The bottom line, however, remains: Europe is not prepared to contend with Syria's army, which is the repository of the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons, and Obama, who several times sent Senator John Kerry to woo Assad and appointed an ambassador to Damascus without Senate approval, has demonstrated his reluctance to acknowledge his flagrant error in judgment, and is again procrastinating with respect to a future course of action.
Thousands more Syrian civilians will die before Assad is ultimately forced to flee Damascus, but in the mean time, the US and EU, which were reluctant to effect economic and diplomatic sanctions, will do little to assist those seeking to dethrone Assad.
From a humanitarian standpoint, the conduct of Obama and the EU has been disgraceful. On the other hand, it is unclear what will emerge from the chaos in Libya, as evidenced by the rebels refusal to extradite the Lockerbie bomber (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/libyan-rebels-refuse-to-extradite.html), and the post-Assad outlook for Syria is even more abstruse, given the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, will rise from the ashes of Hama, and vie for control of the government, as in Egypt.
Today's news: Iran is inviting the chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council to visit Teheran. Perhaps the omniscient editorial board of The New York Times would care to explain what this should teach NATO.
Arab Spring, my eye!
No comments:
Post a Comment