Syria different than Libya ?

Libya was heavily covered by Western press because Gaddafi is (was) a bogeyman. Syria is largely ignored. Arab Spring fatigue?

 

That's a big part of it. Probably doesn't hurt that Egypt is turning into a theocracy, and it's an election year. Obama doesn't want to look like he's helping foreign countries too much, especially "scary" ones like Syria.

It's pathetic how little we actually do for Syria. My friend lives there, he's a US citizen. He called the US embassy when the whole started to get ugly, and thye told him they couldn't do anything.

 

For all intents and purposes the US wants to get in there, just that Russia and China have realized that means regime change, and Russia doesn't want to lose its' last significant ally in the Middle East.

 

I thought Russia was allied with Palestine and Iran as well?

Can't we go in just with NATO instead of with the UN? UN approval didn't stop us from invading Iraq, and it's not like we have much of a rep to lose.

 

Syria has about 4 times the population and is much more densely populated. They also have a more capable military. Of course, it's a bit busy over there right now. In some ways, Syria is similar to Iraq. Both countries were (Iraq) and are (Syria) governed by a religious minority, with influence in the military all out of proportion to their numbers. It's a tougher nut to crack.

 

Palestine isn't a significant ally, and I should have specified Arab states. I don't tend to think of Iran as part of the Middle East, to be honest, because of that distinctness. But either way, that domino might be falling too.

Russia probably can't help but notice that its' two favorite regimes are getting all the attention, while the Saudi role in Bahrain for example, gets shoved to the side.

Going in with NATO could be done, but runs counter to what Obama is trying to do (multilateral strategy that doesn't piss China and Russia off too much). I suspect the French might be pulling hard for it though, and might actually spearhead something. Sarkozy needs something to distract from the ratings cut and the domestic economy.

 

The densely populated bit is probably most important. If the US drops bombs in Syria, there will be a lot of innocent collateral. That is not in the best interests of the United States.

 

My timeline's a little hazy, when did soldiers start to defect to the rebels in Libya? Before NATO or after NATO?

It's easy for the Syrian army to take down rebels.

It's hard for the Syrian rebels to take down rebels and deal with drones and missiles.

To be frank, I'd like to see the Arab states do more than just sit around and watch, I realize it might not be in Saudi Arabia's best interest for Syria to fall, but surely the other arab state would like to see Assad out of power? Jordan maybe?

 

1. There's no organized rebel army to support or hand leadership to.

2. There's no universal international support to provide justification to NATO or whomever else to go in. With Libya, you had the support of the people, the neighbors, the African Union, and the UN.

3. A bombing campaign is much more difficult there given the geography and density, as mentioned by others above.

 

Syria has no oil, but what they do have is ties to Hezbollah and Iran, which is a no-no. Therefore, regime change is the number one priority, its a Sunni vs Shia thing in Syria, in Libya it was a tribal war in between Sunni groups. The opposition is being armed similar to Libya, but don't expect any major military investments. Nobody wants to see this instability spread over to other places....

 

true, but Obama has said the US must intervene to stop the slaughter of innocents. far more innocents are being slaughtered in Syria than Libya.

militarily, they're certainly different challenges.

politically, they're identical.

 

another interesting question is why in Bahrain the US encouraged the Saudi dictatorship to go and slaugter the folks who were seeking democracy from the Bahraini dictatoship and in syria and Libya we support those seeking democracy against the dictatorship.

Sort of makes you wonder if the mainstream really has the story right that it is all about the US supporting democracy.

 

Where did he say this as as universal statement?

 

Probably the Syrian conflict is unique because it needs to be resolved before Israel can participate in Iran operations. They can't go through Turkey or Saudi, it seems Israel has lost too many friends who used to do it favors. GCC governments seem to be balking at taking a stand. Europe is against it because they know the subsequent oil crisis might take a few countries under (see article re Sarkozy asking leading representatives of the French Jewish community to avoid attacking Iran).

That is why the outcome of the Syrian conflict is more important to US foreign policy than the Libya conflict.

With rumors that Russia has beefed up its operations around the region (I guess they want to make sure this doesn't end up being painless) the Middle East seems nervous right now, and Dubai seems to be feeling uncharacteristically gloomy.

But it's ok for us to feel this way and take on this risk and bad blood, to ensure that a more important group of people feel as secure as we used to.

 

Do people over there feel resentful towards Russia and China for their vetos? I also understand if the UN has low approval ratings in the ME over the Israel Palestinian issue then these 'no' votes don't really change anything in people's eyes.

 

Yeah the UN seems to have zero credibility and almost no presence here. No one really sees it as an independent decision maker. You can say the decisions of the UN are seen as testing the mood of those with veto powers.

The way the people feel here is the way people generally feel everywhere after analyzing all the propaganda - that even one more death is unacceptable, and it is infuriating to see these numbers continue to increase while various countries try to enact their foreign policy through a long, beaureucratic process where the self-determination of the Syrian people continues to be passed around like a football by other parties.

It is hard to hate people (China and Russia) who have been virtually non-violent in the region in recent history, have not backed Israel unconditionally, are two massive trade partners who will only become more important once #1 trade partner Iran is gone, etc There are plenty of reasons. What have they really done with this veto other than prevent the incremental increase in casualties in Syria and surrounding Middle East via Russian-US proxy wars? There are no more non-Americans who believe a US-led millitary intervention will kill less people than Assaad would kill by himself.

Keep in mind that every Middle Easterner watched US politics extremely extremely extremely closely in 2011, so much so that I would say the level of awareness regarding actual US politics (rather than conspiracies/rumors) has increased dramatically thanks to what you call the Arab Spring. If there is one unanimous Middle Eastern though which came out of 2011, it's that for better or worse, the US will retain massive influence in whatever country it "liberates", no invitation required, no target exit date. I say "for better or worse" because, obviously, that is beneficial to some and detrimental to others.
.
That's what's happening. There is nothing in the genetics of Middle Easterners that make them care more about each other (though I'm not sure if that's what you were implying or that's how I read it). I think Syria is important to the ME right now because if Syria is US-friendly before April, then we need to worry about ourselves.

 

So you want Syria to be hostile to the US. Interesting.