New York Times Editorial, "NATO's Teachable Moment": "What Would It Be Like to Have to Fight a Real Enemy?"

In an editorial entitled "NATO's Teachable Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html?hp), The New York Times lavishes praise upon Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama for intervening in Libya:

"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!

Thomas Friedman, "The New Hama Rules": Out to Lunch

Finally, a meaningful effort by a New York Times op-ed pundit to relate to the horror in Syria, which is growing worse with each passing day. Yesterday, we saw bloody bodies being tossed by the Syrian security apparatus into the Orontes River to cries of "Brother of a whore!" (see, if your stomach permits it: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/02/syria.video/).

In his latest New York Times column, "The New Hama Rules" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/the-new-hama-rules.html?hp), Thomas Friedman observes the link between the 1982 massacre of Hama's residents by Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, and the events occurring today. Today, however, Friedman contends that the people are "not afraid anymore" and will prevail over the Syrian despot.

Yes, as I observed in prior blog entries (e.g., http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/assad-is-finished-obama-again-on-wrong.html), Assad's days are numbered. His army and security forces commanded by Alawaite loyalists will ultimately not be able to put out the flames of revolt which extend far beyond Hama. But Friedman, still harboring romantic illusions about the root cause of the so-called "Arab Spring," i.e. a struggle for democracy which he now acknowledges might take considerably longer to achieve, remains out to lunch. Friedman writes:

"That is, once these regimes are shucked off, can the different Arab communities come together as citizens and write social contracts for how to live together without iron-fisted dictators — can they write a positive set of Hama Rules based not on anyone fearing anyone else, but rather on mutual respect, protection of minority and women’s rights and consensual government?

. . . .

Now Yemen, Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia are all going to attempt similar transitions — at once — but without a neutral arbiter to referee. It is unprecedented in this region, and we can already see just how hard this will be. I still believe that the democratic impulse by all these Arab peoples to throw off their dictators is heroic and hugely positive. They will oust all of them in the end. But the new dawn will take time to appear."

This is nonsense. First, each of these Arab uprisings has its own unique set of underpinnings: for example, tribal in Libya as opposed to economic in Egypt. Democracy has little or nothing to do with any of this, unless one wishes to make the argument that the attempt by Syria's majority Sunni population to rid themselves of minority Alawite rule has anything at all to do with "one person, one vote."

What has "precipitated" the uprising in Syria? Actually, a prolonged drought, which has destroyed the Syrian economy and has forced hundreds of thousands of people to abandon their rural homes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/middleeast/14syria.html). This grim states of affairs, coupled with dwindling oil reserves, has resulted in massive unemployment among Syria's youth (see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130222200). With nothing to lose, Syria's Sunni were primed to revolt against their Alawite overlords, whom they consider to be heretics or not even Muslims.

Where does this lead? Sorry if I can't strike a chord of optimism. Economic stagnation and unemployment in Syria will only grow worse as the population continues to grow. Democracy? Sorry, Tom, not a chance, not now, not ever.

Syria: The Beginning of a Savage Civil War?

As reported today by Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/18/us-syria-idUSTRE76F26I20110718), at least 30 people have died in Homs, Syria's third largest city, as a result of fighting between persons supporting and opposing Syrian President Assad:

"Rami Abdelrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said on Monday that clashes between pro- and anti-Assad residents started on Saturday afternoon after the bodies of three government supporters, kidnapped last week, were returned to their relatives dismembered."

Assad is a member of the Alawite sect, which comprises some 12% of Syria's population. Until now Bashar al-Assad, and his father before him, maintained power by appointing Alawite officers to key positions in the Syrian army and security agencies.

Alawites have long been deemed heretics by Syria's Sunnis, who comprise some 70% of the population.

Assad is on his way out. However, it remains to be seen whether the Syrian Sunni majority will now seek revenge for years spent under the thumb of the Assads and the 1982 Hama massacre of up to 40,000 Sunnis, which has never been forgotten.

It's not going to be pretty.

New York Times Editorial, "President Assad’s Bloody Hands": A New Level of Hypocrisy

In an editorial entitled "President Assad’s Bloody Hands" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/04/opinion/04sat2.html?_r=1&ref=opinion), The New York Times decries the failure of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the murder of civilians in Syria:

"Most appalling, the United Nations Security Council is unable to muster the votes to condemn the bloodshed much less impose sanctions. Russia, cynically protecting longstanding ties with Damascus, is blocking meaningful action and China has fallen in lockstep. India is also reluctant to act — a shameful stance for a democracy that has been bidding for a permanent seat on the Council."

Remarkably, this editorial never once mentions Obama's appointment of Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria or Obama's failure to recall him.

In 2005, Assad explicitly approved the murder by Hezbollah of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a friend of the West, and the U.S. ambassador to Syria was recalled by President Bush. Obama, however, made it the cornerstone of his foreign policy to reach out in friendship to heretofore "misunderstood" tyrannies, e.g., Iran and Syria. In furtherance of this revolutionary foreign policy, Obama repeatedly sent Senator John Kerry, who aspires to be the next U.S. secretary of state, to court Assad in Damascus.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). This move has now backfired on Obama, leaving him in a quandary how to clean up the mess.

The New York Times Editorial additionally states:

"After the killing began, the United States and Europe imposed sanctions — mostly travel bans and asset freezes — on certain key regime officials while exempting Mr. Assad. Only later did they add his name to the list. The rhetoric is stiffening. On Thursday Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that Mr. Assad’s legitimacy is 'if not gone, nearly run out.' But some American and European officials still buy the fantasy that Mr. Assad could yet implement reforms."

Assad's legitimacy has "nearly run out"? Hillary's rhetoric is "stiffening"? Hillary's declarations are as stiffening and useless to the protesters in Hama as a bottle of Viagra. Recall Hillary's declaration in late March in which she sought to shield Assad from disapproval (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml):

"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."

Once again, the U.S. ambassador to Syria should have been recalled months ago without consideration for what the United Nations Security Council does or does not do. Shame on Obama, shame on Hillary, and shame on The New York Times!

Obama, Recall Ambassador Ford from Syria!

Sixty-three protesters were murdered throughout Syria yesterday by Assad's security forces, but mostly in Hama, in the worst outbreak of violence since the beginning of unrest in this country. The horror came as no surprise (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/05/civil-war-in-syria-beginning-of-end-for.html).

Homework: Go the website of the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, Syria (http://damascus.usembassy.gov/). Although there is a very lovely picture of Ambassador Robert Ford, do you see any mention of the violence sweeping Syria?

Now click on "News & Events" in this website. Do you see any mention of unrest? I don't. Sickening.

Bypassing Senate confirmation and seeking to avoid public scrutiny by acting while many were on holiday, Obama appointed Robert Ford as ambassador to Syria at the end of December 2010 (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/29/AR2010122904168.html). It's high time for Obama to acknowledge his mistake in reaching out to the world's most barbarous regimes and immediately recall Ambassador Ford.