Syria's Major Supporters And Why

There has been a lot of press and talk about the Assad regime and the violence that is spreading slowly out of its borders. We have seen Iran as a major supporter of Bashar al-Assad. Today we need to look at the top three political and material supports that Assad has. Those three supporting nations, in ascending order, are China, Russia, and Iran. This analysts will not take into account UN votes, but financial and material support. China has its trade route and an ideolgue supporting some of their territorial views. Russia maintains a stronger military presence in the eastern Mediteranean, profits from arms sales, and has invested billions into Syrian infrastructure. Iran, we can easily state that they are knee deep in the hooplah and they are in it for the full range of what happens.

China has quite a financial interst with Syria. China, as of February this year, was Syria's third largest export country. Recall history, Syria was part of the Silk Road. Even today, china sees Syria as a trading and shipping hub. A rather important hub, at that. Ideologically, Hu Jintao and Assad have given support to each other on some views that have caused strong international angst over. Those views include Syrian support of China's claims and treatment of Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjang, and on China's application of human rights. China continues to support Assad on his claims over the Golan Heights.

China and Syria find mutually beneficial financial and ideological support for each other.

Russian support for the Assad regime includes military and financial interests as well. The depth of these interests goes far deeper than those of China.

Financially Russia is looking to recover financial interests are closely tied to its military interests in the region. The port at Tartus provides a strategic foothold. The Black Sea Fleet uses the port facilities for ship maintenance, supply, and logistics. The facilities at Tartus and the power grud in the surrounding area infrastructure has benefitted from Russia's investing $19.4 billion dollars in 2009. As of 2011 the facilities and piers at Tartus can, and have, supported guided missile cruisers and Kuznetzov class aircraft carriers. Russia continues to act in ways that undermine American interestts.

Russia may also be getting some isolationism ideas like the  methods used during the Cold War. At that time the West made strategic allies in order to surround Russian expansion and stop their geographic spread. Current examples include US support to Bahrain and Uzbekistan. I believe that this gambit is one that will completely fail for the West.

The Russian Liberal Democratic Party leader, Vladimir Zhimorovsky, has made some very strong statements againsty Western support to the rebels. Statements that indicate there is much more going on than is currently visible. Zhimorovsky has said that any US support to the rebels is "absolutely unacceptable" and would, in his eyes be, tantamount to violently toppling a regime.

Russia gains a naval forward support base and earns billions from arms sales. Commercially, Russia has earned $5 billion in weaponss sales to Damascus.

Iranian Support is all geared towards gaining a physical and very strategic position in the region. Iran has been so completely isolated from decent international contact for so long that the leadership is looking for any way to expand out of their isolation. By any means includes the blatant shipments by air and over land as well as the hardcer to see support through Hezbollah and in assisting Assad with the training and manning, as it were, of an army of children suicide bombers and fighters. This last group is known as the Basij, which Ahmedinijad claims to be. Judging by his age and grey hair, I openly declare him a failure in his service as a child soldier/suicide bomber. If Ahmedinijad could have done that right 40 years ago his poor judgement and mistakes wouldn't be an issue now.

Seriously, Iran already has missiles that can strike Israel from inside its borders, but, I am guessing that the guidance systems still leve something to be desired. Iran has successfully launched mutlistage rockets and put sattelites into orbit, but, they have yet to demonstrate the capacity to deliver their paylods at range. Every missilt that Iran has, buys, and makes can carry a nuclear payload. Iran is even working on its own independent re-entry vehicle. This IRV makes enough people at the IAEA to start investigations, not that any inspection will receive compliance from Ahmedinijad or Khameini.

Iran has the largest missile surplus in the Middle East. One of their missile production/storage sites was just bombed in Sudan earlier this week. Reports of this Israerli lead attack state that 300 Shahab III missiles there were destroyed. Iran is trying to put its own strike missile system in place in Syria. Why would they not expect to be allowed to? That is, should Assad not die in place.

Just imagine the changes that would most undoubtedly take place if Russia and Iran had missile silos in Syria while the US missile defense system, which Obama unplugged and dismantled, absent from the region. Could we ever again have allies in Eastern Europe? Could we carry on trade theough that region? No, not at all. The US Naval Fleet coverage and the protections it guarantees would be stripped away from the Mediteranean, through the Gulf of Aden, off the Somali pirate coast, and into the Indian Ocean.

Rebuilding American Influence in the Middle East is NOT a DIY Project

On the 18th the NY Times published an OpEd by Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian diplomat. Mr. Muasher asked what can America do to rebuild influence in the Middle East. One suggestion was that our nation (that, by law, cannot have an official religion) must back "a dynamic change toward pluralism". Lets look briefly at pluralism in the east, shall we. In Egypt Coptic Christians are hunted and slaughtered with impunity. In Darfur there is an Arab tribe, Jinjaweed (Arabic for Devils on horseback) that are trying to cleanse the area of Africans so it can be an all Arabian region. Iran and Syria have spent the past several years trying to kill off all the non-Shi'ites within their boarders. Iraq has spent decades torturing and murdering non-Sunni people. This does not fit the definition of pluralistic.

Mr. Marwan acknowledges that there was a time when America had influence on the Arabian Street. He does not say when, in his opinion, that changed. I believe that shift happened during President Ford's time in office. The first sign of that was when the Arab members of OPEC started the oil embargo against America. Those members were, and these should sound familiar, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. That embargo bled us financially and showed us vulnerable. What does that mean? Consider now these two Arabian proverbs, "A falling camel invites many knives" and "When people see two horses and one is strong and the other weak, people naturally like the strong horse".

The Middle East is a harsh environment that has bred a harsh people. Weakness is a detriment to survival. Only here, in America, do people cheer for the under dog. Culturally, we see even the sickly runt of the litter as valuable. In the Middle East the scarce resources are saved for the strong, not the weak. This is a dichotomy that is completely the opposite of ours.

Fast forward past the list of attacked US Embassies (still an act if war according to Clinton's Stated Departmentt) to the time when Obama met the Saudi King. Obama deliberately did what President John F. Kennedy said that no leader of the free world should ever do. Obama bowed. The Middle East is not a dojo, bowing is a sign of subjugation. By bending over and exposing your neck you are saying that your life is theirs to take or to spare.

Apologizing for aging been a world leader, which is another sign of weakness. It says to them that we should not be better off than they. It makes America look like a falling camel.

So, how do we regain face, rebuild any semblance of power, in the Arabian Street?

Al Jazeera just posted a video, in English so we can clearly get it, that Clinton, Obama, and America are not welcome there. That video is titled "You Are Not Welcome in Egypt". This year alone has seen more than $250 million dollars given to the Egyptian banking sector to prevent a collapse, $90 million for democratic development, $100 million for economic recovery, and not with Obama's yearly $1 billion dollar gift. That comes out to $1.8 billion of our tax dollars given to one government that has openly opposed America for the last 39 years while profiting from us.

How do we regain influence in the Middle East? With backbone, swift, harsh responses to acts of war and opposition, with a clear message that we are stronger than they.

I have no idea how we can do this. We need the likes of Fenerals Abrams, Patton, Schwartzkopf, the business acumen of Lee Iacoca, JP Morgan, Carngie,and Presidents Reagan and Bush senior to formulate that plan. We need, as a nation, to be able to stomach what must be done. This must include developing our own sources of fuel and energy. We must revitalize our industrial souls. Other than that, I must leave it to those with bigger brain pans than I.

 

The Week In Review 19 October 2012

Obama has been privately supporting a nuclear Iran since, at least, May of this year. The Wasihngton Post caught it and did an article about it. This news was all over the news in the Middle East. Just this week news outlets like CNN, Fox News have begun talking about it. In 2011 I talked about how likely this was. Both Secretary and former President Clintom have openly said this is a very dangerous situation. Secretary Clinton fears an arms race in the East. My guess is she forgot about Pakistan and India and their nuclear tap dance.

In 2008 Obama stood on a stage in Cairo and promised that Iran would not go nuclear on his watch. This close to November Obama would be technically correct; however, he will leave the next president a bigger mess than he received. What will it look like with a nuclear Iran and Iranian nuclear weapons in Iran's proxy, Syria?

Won't the UN say something about this increasingly dangerous scenario? I am sure the UN will huff and puff before it finally says something like, "Hey, you kids! Get outta my yard!" The UN was impotent before. America is only going to come up against more blockades in the UN and internationally now that Russian allies Azerbaijan and Pakistan are on the UN Security Council. The next administration is going to be completely stonewalled with Russia, China, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Togo, Colombia, Morocco, and Guatemala voting against the US the next administration is going to have more of a mess than this one received.

Perhaps now is the time to redo an infamous picture fromSoviet history. Now it will show the profiles  of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Obama.

The Appeasement Protocol did not work for London during WWII and it is proving disastrous now. According to the State Department attacking an embassy is an act of war against that nation. Appeasement resulted in nine acts of war against the United States that have gone unanswered, at best, ignored at worst. This response, which includes Obama and Clinton pointing fingers claiming it was not my fault, only makes our nation appear weak and disorganized.

One wonders why the charging station for a Chevy Volt at the US Embassy in Vienna at a cost of $108,000 was a more important investment than the loss of human life and millions upon millions of dollars lost in those nine embassy attacks.

Those countries in which our embassies were attacked continue to get tens of millions of our tax dollars yearly. Those countries which oppose us internationally, like Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, receive billions of our tax dollars yearly to develop their infrastructure while our infrastructure falls further into disrepair.

We, as a nation, must stop sending billions of dollars to nations that hate and oppose us, that produce and export highly sought after materials like oil and gold. We should not be paying for their despotism. This administration has shown that it is penny foolish and dollar moronic. The next administration is leaving a much larger mess for the next administration than it received.

That's this week. I cannot wait to see what Chairman MaiBama is going to do to us next week.


http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-10-16T17:49:00-04:00&max-results=7
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/foreign-policy-magazine-on-syria.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/iran-not-budging-on-nuclear-issues.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/on-cusp-of-nuclear-iran.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/embassy-security-lower-priority-than.html
http://msmignoresit.blogspot.com/2012/10/embassy-attacks.html

Obama Gets Cosier With Iran

I have been concerned (frightened) by the current administration’s policies towards the Middle East. I have posted and considered the cultish and narcissistic nature of Ahmedinijad, the Iranian goals of bringing back the mahdi, and Iranian expansionism. I have also stated fairly clearly that I believe that President Obama is the Manchurian Candidate for Iran. This morning’s news releases do nothing but reinforce and strengthen that opinion.

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann on Friday expressed regret over the fall of US ally Hosni Mubarak “while President Obama sat on his hands." This sitting on his hands, as I have mentioned several times, goes back to the Iranian uprising in 2009 when videos and tweets and facebook posts were coming out in torrents detailing a vicious crackdown on the people. This violent squashing of people demanding to be treated as people, as they are in the West, was stomped down with hobnailed boots of the regime and was supported by both houses of Iranian governmental leadership. Bachman should also say something about the ongoing slaughter and hobnailed boot-stomping actions of Syrian President, Basher al-Assad.

Earlier this year Obama attempted to put Israel on the US State Department’s list of State Sponsors of Terror; however, pro-Hamas Turkey is to chair an Obama backed counter-terrorism body. This panel is not to include Israel and is being done quietly, in the shadows of the UN General Assembly this week. This would likely be why Ahmedinijad is so openly welcome at the event; it provides enough distraction to allow this little CT group to get started. Turkey is not a friend of Israel and not much of a friendly place to visit, at least so the US State Department says. There are travel warnings and terror groups there as well. Aside from being pro-Hamas the country is trying to put down an uprising of the State Department listed group Kongra Gel. This group has a history of attacking Turkish officials, security forces, and villagers who oppose the group. Do you see this as being familiar? Try 2009 Iran and 2011 Syria as fitting the pattern. Who else is sitting in this group? Good question. Obama is willing to sit with OIC members Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, among others.

Hillary Clinton calls this “smart power approach to counterterrorism,” and described the founding group as “traditional allies, emerging powers and Muslim-majority countries.” I call it another attempt to subjugate the power and strength of America to its enemies.

In spite of all Obama’s efforts to be seen on the right side of modern Middle Eastern history amid uprisings and revolts across the Arab world, the White House has warned that it will use its veto power to block the Palestinians in the UN Security Council, provoking dire warnings from another long-term ally, Saudi Arabia. Now, with Iran in support of the Palestinian state I believe that the White House will want to support the vote. If this were to happen the Democratic Party would quite likely openly denounce Obama in light of his plummeting poll numbers. While there are those who see this as a game of numbers, I see it as life and death reality. The reality of it is that Obama and his friends in the East are neither friend to the West nor of America.

There item which truly puts me in the camp of Obama/Iran is that Obama is reportedly looking into putting a phone line in the White House which goes directly to Iran. Ostensibly, this line is intended to alert Iran to the presence of US ships in the Persian Gulf. Iran already knows where our ships are. Everybody knows where our ships are! There is absolutely no OPSEC (Operational Security) these days and no one recalls the reality behind ‘loose lips sink ships’. Bottom line, someone thinks that it is a good and prudent idea to have a direct phone line between the two presidents. During the Cold War this was done with Russia; however, the presidents who served, with the dubious distinction of Carter, used that phone line as a diplomatic and foreign policy tool. In this case I believe that someone else would use that line to use Obama as a tool.

This is a view which the mainstream media is not going to cover or report until they are forced to do so.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107699-503544.html

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/pro-hamas-turkey-and-u-s-will-co-chair-obama-backed-counter-terror-forum-israel-not-included/

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/09/17/pro-hamas-turkey-and-u-s-will-co-chair-obama-backed-counter-terror-forum-israel-not-included/

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/former-middle-east-allies-snub-washington-as-its-influence-dwindles-20110918-1kfyp.html

Discourse or Death, What to do

Bottom Line Up Front

Peaceful discourse, mutually supportive policies, economic growth, and the realization of certain inalienable rights to all peoples is one way of summarizing US goals and diplomatic efforts. Achieving these goals anywhere has proven difficult. Achieving these goals in the Middle East has proven impossible, at least for the past several decades. Dealing with Iran and Syria has been emblematic of this struggle faced by US policy makers.

In short, the Middle East is ruled by iron fisted dictators that visit their sadistic pleasures against their citizens, routinely and violently attack neighbors based on issues as seemingly trivial as what form of religion they practice, and smile too sweetly at the US with their hands extended either for a questionable handshake or for money. Unless the West drastically changes its political will and stands tall with testicular fortitude, the Middle East WILL devolve further from our vision of peace and further into chaos. The problem with deepening chaos is that the entire world will feel that pain. How much oil do we depend on these sanctimonious psychopaths for? How much of the worlds trade travels through their regions? How much are we going to have to pay in our own ransom before there is another knife at our global throat?

My suggestion is to stand strong and respond to a bloody nose with a bloody nose and breaking of the knee.

Background

So, the Middle East is a problem that is worsening. Coercive regime change has, and is still, being tried in Iraq, Egypt, and Libya. While Iraq is currently seeing fewer shootings than in Chicago it is not a stable peace. Egypt and Libya appear to be falling into deeper trouble without their previous rulers in place. The Muslim Brotherhood, which has stated that it is dedicated to the destruction of the West and its allies in establishing a caliphate, is solidifying its grip on Egypt. Libya is still in the death throes of the Qadaffy regime.

As a result of the sour smelling bag of dung the West now has its hands on there is currently a strong resistance towards regime change in places like Sudan, Syria, and Lebanon. Applying any measure of control or trying to urge the leadership in the East to use restraint has resulted in mockery and public chastisement of the West, a serious loss of face and sign of weakness to the cultures we are trying to connect with.

The other obvious option is trying to use sanctions, trade deals, and resolutions aimed at gently turning the despotic leaders towards being kinder and gentler leaders. Will behavior change, rather than forced and violent leadership change, work in either Iran or Syria or anywhere else for that matter?

Diplomatic options might be worth exploring if done with broad regional appeal and allied relationships among friends and allies. The primary caveat to this might be that we need to enter discussions with eyes opened remembering that, even as allies, the regimes are dangerous, untrustworthy allies. Problematic is achieving this without the appearance of appeasing the parties at the table. Appeasement has always proven to be a failure.

How does one negotiate a positive ending, a resolution to longstanding issues? One way, as taught in ivy covered colleges, is to identify what the others want and find a way to achieve that without giving up what you want. What do these governments want? What does a person who trains his own citizens to be suicide bombers want? I say that person wants a totalitarian system of government in which no one is allowed to think for themselves. Listen to what each country says about its neighbors! In the case of religious rule for a country Saudi Arabi, the seat of wahabism, is not considered strict enough. Anyone who does not share their understanding will be executed. If you want to know what a this will look like, contemplate the Taliban in Afghanistan—the only state in recent memory that is considered to have been legitimately Islamic. Consider, also, the rise to power of Stalin and how many millions of people were, and still are, murdered for the communistic regime.

Only after the UN demanded (several times) an end to the slaughter in Libya by Qadaffy did Obama call on NATO to be part of the solution. That should be read as NATO being used as a cover for Obama’s attempt to clumsily effect a regime change. Meanwhile, in Syria Iran sent elite forces, equipment, and money to Bashir al-Assad to use in his continued legacy of killing his own people based on their religious bent.

Thousands of people are dying at the whim of al-Assad, in a manner not too dissimilar to how Qadaffy ruled, and Ahmedinijad declares that he will stand by his ally.

What do we do? Do we depose of the despot or try to charm him? How long did the West try to talk with Osama? What has happened since we killed him? What will come of deposing a terroristic leader? When the West kills or removes a leader in the East it is widely heralded as an act of devilish evil which must, by religious decree, be met with the blood of the people of the West and their leaders.

The options still include regime change and appeasement, but there is also another option. That is to install a benevolent dictator. Look at the culture and the attitudes of the regions and peoples of the Middle East. A harsh environment in which the slightest bit of weakness brings death has created a people who see the world, life and death, in the same way.

There is no simple answer. The only sure thing is, by going in showing timidity and weakness, by apologizing for all wrongs (real and perceived) will dangerously fail.

US FOREIGN POLICY & MIDDLE EAS (Garland Reference Library of Social Science)

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub759.pdf

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5592.htm

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5606.htm

Al-Assad to Obama

Bottom Line Up Front
Basher al-Assad wants nothing from the United States and, like Ah.edinijad of Iran, says that he sees Obama's efforts as attempts to wrest control of Sudan. Why would Obama do that? In the view of our enemies the Wesr wants to loot all resources from each country and kill all the people. That is what they are saying.

I want to know why Obama and Clinton are dumping and wasting billions of our tax dollars by trying to improve relations with and allow our restricted technologirs to be accessed by this homocidal criminal!
Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad to U.S. President Barack Obama: Your Words Are Worthless
Following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, which aired on Syria TV on August 21, 211.

Background from MEMRI
"Reforms, as Far as All These Western Colonialist Countries are Concerned… Mean that You Give Them Everything They Want, Giving Up All Your Rights"

Bashar Al-Assad: "What is reassuring today is not the security situation, which, indeed, seems to be improving. What is reassuring is the fact that the scheme was entirely different: They wanted to topple Syria within a few short weeks. What protected the country was the awareness of the Syrian people. This is what we draw confidence from. Therefore, the escalation of events does not constitute a problem." [...]

Interviewer: "Why did the West respond negatively to these reforms?"

Bashar Al-Assad: "If we consider our past experience with the Western governments, we see that their traditional response to anything you do is: This is not enough. [...]

"They tell you that it is not enough because reform is not really their goal. The truth is that they do not want reforms, and some of them even get upset because they want you to refrain from reforms, so that your country will remain backward and will not develop.

"Reforms, as far as all these Western colonialist countries are concerned – and I'm not talking about the entire West, but only about the colonialist countries – mean that you give them everything they want, giving up all your rights. These are reforms as far as they are concerned: Give up the resistance, give up your rights, defend your enemies – all the things with which we are familiar, when it comes to the colonialist countries of the West.

"I say simply: Not in their wildest dreams – not now and not under different circumstances."

"The consequences of Any Action Against Syria would Exceed by Far what They Could Possibly Bear"
Interviewer: "Recently, Obama, by means of his secretary of state – and he was followed by Britain, France, and Germany – called upon you, loud and clear, to step down. What is your response?"

Bashar Al-Assad: "In several meetings with Syrian citizens in recent days, I was asked this question, but in a different way. They didn't ask me what my response was, but why I didn't respond.

"Sometimes one responds, and sometimes one doesn't. We deal with each case in the appropriate manner. When dealing with a friendly country, we sometimes respond in order to make our position clear, especially if we know that this country adopted a position that runs counter to its convictions, due to certain international circumstances.

"When dealing with non-friendly countries, we sometimes respond in order to convey the message that if they plan to take their policies too far, we are ready to go even further. In other cases, we want to convey the message that their words are worthless, by refraining from responding.

"In the case in question, we chose the latter approach, in order to tell them that their words are worthless.
"But since I am talking to Syria TV, which is very dear to every Syrian citizen, and for the sake of transparency, I can say that if I had wanted to discuss this, I would have simply said that this is not something you say to a president for whom being a president is not the main thing, a president who was brought to power not by the U.S. and the West, but by the Syrian people. This is not something you say to a people that rejects a high commissioner, whoever he may be. [...]

"The consequences of any action against Syria would exceed by far what they could possibly bear. The first reason is the geo-political position of Syria. The second reason is the Syrian capabilities, only some of which they are familiar with, and the impact of which they would not be able to bear.

"So we should draw a distinction between psychological warfare and facts, without underestimating this kind of intimidation. [...]

"The Syrian decision is far more important than any international resolution. This is a matter of principle. End of discussion. Security Council or not – we don't care. [...]

"The countries that make threats are themselves in a mess – militarily, economically, politically, and even socially. They are weak, much weaker than in the past. We did not give in to them six years ago, when they were at the peak of their might, so what, are we supposed to give in today?! Absolutely not." [...]

Obama Names Two Experienced Diplomats to Team As Problems Mount

Obama and Clinton naming diplomats to Sudan and South Sudan is probably not too intersting. Let's put it in perspective.
Bottom Line Up Front
Obama and Clinton are deepening international relations with a country that is murdering its own citizens, is being led by a president under international arrest warrant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, is currently on the State Department's Terrorism Sponsor Watchlist, and is maintaining close ties to other similar countries like Iran.
Background
AllAfrica.com posts that Obama and Clinton have assigned ambassadors to Sudan and South Sudan. The issues that makes this non-news here in the United States are manifold and quickly complicated.
40 years of internal war continues today in spite of several treaties and agreements. Sudan, now headed by al-Basher who is wanted and under an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC), is wanted for war crimes and crimes against humanity for his direct and indirect rolls in the war. A war against his own citizens that is, right now, carrying out military attacks against unarmed villages.
Under al-Basher terrorist groups, including al Qaeda, came to Sudan to find refuge as well as training, supplies, and transportation. It was this support is why the State Department placed Sudan and its despotic leader al-Basher on the Terrorism Watchlist.
In many sickening and frightening ways Sudan and al-Basher are like Syria under al-Assad. More disturbing than currently murdering their own citizens is that, while Obama and Clinton share, sell, and allow al-Basher access to restricted weapons and dual use materials, more disturbing than giving millions of US tax dollars to a terroristic regime is that Iran is already in Sudan.
Obama and Clinton are currently carrying out a policy and campaign of appeasement while Iran laughs at the United States and furthers its own arsenal to use against us. Iran is currently killing US forces in Afghanistan and has been in Iraq since US troops first put boots on the ground.

And, Still, They Die

Obama and Clinton condemn Assad. Assad condemns the US for condemning him. Really, what else was expected? And still they die whil Obama dithers http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/19/bloomberg1376-LQ81D01A1I4H01-3UCMJ86N4F4U087RIKG7MPDOCE.DTL

BLUF

It is more expedient and safer for Obama and Clinton to build a stronger international outcry against Assad than to actually do anything. By safer I mean that his ratings will take a straight line drop if he gets us into another messy spot right now. Libya is still going on and Obama cannot take the pressure of getting into another war, particularly after having lambasted Bush for doing that.  I also do not believe that Obama will do anything until the Organization of Islamic Countries tells the UN to get America into the game.

BACKGROUND

Syrian troops have continued their assault on the Syrian people. In events that are frighteningly similar to those of 1993 in Bugojno where Croats were rounded up and held captive at the Iskra Soccer Club before being tortured and executed, Syrians are undergoing a mass arrest and detention that is most likely to end in mass murder.

The people being rounded up and held in the stadium in Latakia were simply trying to escape the onslaught from the government forces. Many people have been killed trying to run away. Perhaps now that a Palestinian camp in Latakia has been shelled and evacuated the Arab Street (read Gutter) will rail against Assad. Why not? Israel gets slammed for defending themselves against Palestinian rockets, why not Assad getting a slap on the wrist for shelling a Palestinian refugee camp?

The White House said the US was working with other countries to pressure Assad to end the "outright murder of his own people." This statement has come from Jay Carney, but still no real action. Carney says that Obama is talking with other countries about what to do. "The Syrian people deserve a peaceful transition to democracy; they deserve a government that doesn't torture them, arrest them and kill them. And we are looking, together with a broad array of international partners, to increase pressure on President Assad"

Obama is going on a three day bus tour that has already cost more than $2.2 million dollars. Assad is using naval bombardment, snipers, and tanks against his own citizenry. Where is the outrage? Where is the disgust? Edmund Burke said that when good men do nothing, evil triumphs.

I can, to a point, understand the reluctance of the UN and its lackeys to not get involved in or say anything about Syria. The UN is already bleeding out in Sudan and have been for years. The UN suffered assault after assault along the Ethiopia/Eritrea border. They proved utterly useless in Bosnia in protecting citizens with “gun free” and UN safe zones like Prijedor and Srebrenica. So, why get into it with Assad? Why do anything without the permission of the OIC (the largets voting bloc in the UN)? Why go to Syria when there is no shelling, sniping, or bombardment of rural areas and cities in Burma?

Burma? Really, UN? I thought that sub continent Asian country ceased to exist and has for years been called Myanmar. I know the UN is going to just waste time and dither while people are slaughtered, raped, murdered en masse globally. These crimes are being committed daily by their own member states while we, the people of the US, pay them with our tax dollars.

So, Obama and Clinton feel that it is better for all if Assad hears more and more nations say that he has to go. Fine; what happens if, in six months, all the countries in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia say that Assad has to go. Will he? Will he just step down to accept a trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity? Omar al-Bashir and Khadafy are both under warrant for war crimes such as slaughtering their own people.

In my opinion it is easier and more expedient for Obama to say little and do nothing about Assad. Obama’s ratings plummeted as the Libya intervention lingered, and lingers, on. Assad will continue, unfettered, unchecked, until he has completely cleansed his country of anyone who would dare say that he was not a kind and benevolent leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/middleeast/17syria.html?_r=1

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/08/16/un-rights-investigator-to-visit-burma-next-week/

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/united-nations-needs-harsh-sanctions-against-syria

Growing Unrest in the Middle East

As the violence from the Arab Spring spreads, it comes to mind that it might, just MIGHT, have something to do with the foreknowledge that the US is pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Just a thought, but, onto the BLUF

Bottom Line Up Front

No real action will be taken against Syria until the UN has gotten permission from the Organization of Islamic Countries. When action does come, the US will be at the forefront and reigned back by other regimes.

Background

The Middle East is now, always has been, and always will be, a violent mess. The so called "Arab Spring" brings to mind all sorts of lush, new green, budding growth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. World bodies, comprised of presumably democratic nations, stand and do nothing. The only action that is taken, be it in Iran, Algeria, Egypt, or now Syria, comes after the UN first goes through a regular series of steps to publicly "do something". It ends after the US gets called on by the UNSC to actually do something. When it was Lybia, Obama acted under the War Powers Act by putting us and NATO in the air and on the ground there. Now, with Syria five months into killings protestors, the UN continues to talk about and to consider what actions may (not will, but may) be taken.

On the UNSC are three bodies opposing stronger sanctions, sanctions that require unanimous support to be passed (no talk about enforcing, just passing) as a legal resolution. Those opposing the passage are Russia, China, and Lebanon. There is no shock that Russia and China, both of whom have strong records of making their own citizens disappear and die, are opposed to actions against Syria. So, too, is Lebanon. Lebanon is the proxy presence of Iran on the UNSC.

There are also reports that the United States has evidence of crimes against humanity that the Assad regime is now guilty of. Crimes which UN Secratary General Ban Ki-Moon says are very possibly real. These alleged and hinted at vharges are goig to be used as leverage, by the US, to get Assad to step down. To step down, ouch. That he gets to step down after committing crimes against humanity and slaughtering his own people is a sickening thought. Five months of killing his citizens and he could face the possibility of being asked to step down.

Considering the rally such a statement from the US would result in, this would likely come to the bloody and tortuous end of those who rallied at the words of our President. So, while the civilized world is "appalled" by the daily murder of Syrians citizens by their dictator Assad, the Ditherer In Chief waits for the OIC and the UN to let him off of his leash.Even while the impotent UN meets to talk about taking more action, Surians continue to suffer and die. Assets that the US can freeze have been. State Department personnel seem distressed that Assad cannot hear the call of the international community to stop. He can't seem to hear anything over the sound of the guns being used to kill protestors en masse. Leaders of Arab nations will continue to meet and discuss this uprising in Syria in their cool, clean offices and sprawling dining rooms, entreating their wayward cohort to be more gentle with his people.The nearly 2,000 people who have died during the last 5, almost 6, months will bear silent witness to the lack of concern for anyone.

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/crimes-against-humanity-possible-in-syria-un_721685.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gC-QbkO61noyu9aKJB6RcyXBFmew?docId=CNG.d1c504bf387227a7f8244a7ff8064da3.481

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/UN-Security-Council-Meeting-on-Syria-127443678.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/08/09/bloomberg1376-LPOO8F1A74E901-1JGKKEAQ2BAM1PTBP3R96QKV9I.DTL&ao=2

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/09/the-u-n-and-double-standards/