Syria indeed cannot be compared to Iraq. Unlike Saddam, the Syrian leader was not installed by the US, but the next Syrian leader will be, whether the Syrians like it ot not.
Most of the insurgents in Syria are not Syrians, but are the US/NATO backed islamists who have been used to install US puppets in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Stop pretending it’s got anything to do with democracy or the will of the Syrian People, when it’s so obvious that it’s just another colonial war by the empire, and like the other countries in the middle east, the goal is to destabilise, and put in an unstable replacement regime that must toe the US line or be removed.
____________________________
We have “stayed the course” for 10 years in Iraq, and now 12 years in Afghanistan. Then in between, we took a minor detour and ventured into Libya.
So what did we achieve ? Are the results favourable ? Are situations any better than before we got involved ?
Comment by dubious the third
to:
Don’t let Iraq syndrome prolong the slaughter in Syria
by Benjamin Herscovitch
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4596532.html
The memory of the the rash military adventurism in Iraq is still fresh, but that must not prevent us from using force to help end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, writes Benjamin Herscovitch.
A decade after the United States’ shock-and-awe assault on Baghdad, the international community is still in the grip of Iraq syndrome.
Haunted by memories of a protracted conflict that killed 200,000 Iraqis and 5,000 coalition troops, the world is wary of wars in the name of regime change.
In dramatic contrast to the Bush administration’s bellicose enthusiasm for ousting Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, the international community has been sheepish in the face of Bashar al-Assad’s bloody two-year campaign to put down a popular uprising in Syria.
While tens of thousands of Syrians have been killed in brutal combat with their own government and one million have been forced to flee their homeland, the international community has mostly just talked. On Monday, Archbishop Desmond Tutu made an impassioned plea to end the inaction, calling it a “moral failure”.
To be sure, the verbal reprimands have been forceful.
Last month, the United States condemned the Assad regime’s Scud missile attack on the northern flashpoint city of Aleppo in the “strongest possible terms”, saying the regime “has no legitimacy and remains in power only through brute force”. The United Nations (UN) has also repeatedly rebuked the regime for a long list of atrocities committed against civilians.
As aggressively as the international community might censure the Assad regime, little concrete action has been taken to halt the killing. And with the threat of further international condemnation the biggest stick on the table, the regime shows no sign of recalling its troops.
Like the lions of Aesop’s Fables, Assad can easily respond to even the most strident denunciations from the international community: “Your speeches lack claws and teeth such as we have.”
It is time for the international community to put some brute force behind its words.
A no-fly zone needs to be established to protect civilians, roll back Assad’s domination of the air, and give the Free Syrian Army (FSA) tactical breathing space.
Getting approval will require intense diplomatic lobbying given Chinese and Russian resentment over the mission creep that followed their abstentions in the UN Security Council’s (UNSC) resolution authorising the Libyan no-fly zone.
This is an opportune moment for Australia to use its much-vaunted UNSC seat to good effect. Along with the United States and key European powers, Australia should offer assurances to Russia and China that a UNSC resolution authorising a no-fly zone will not be twisted into approval for a large-scale military campaign against the Assad regime.
Tipping the balance of power in favour of the FSA through a no-fly zone is admittedly fraught with danger.
There are fresh reports of Islamist militants entering the fray from the Caucasus Mountains and other jihadist hotspots. These Islamist fighters might try to impose their own brand of authoritarianism on Syria or destabilise the country with ongoing violence once Assad is gone.
A no-fly zone might also lead to a spike in violence as the FSA redoubles its efforts against the dogged Assad regime. So even if the international community can agree to a no-fly zone to hasten an end to the violence, things are probably going to get worse before they get better.
Although imposing a no-fly zone is not without real risks, the alternatives are even less palatable.
Simply condemning the Assad regime is far from a solution to the bloodshed. The international community has been doing this for two years, and yet the war has raged on and the carnage shows no sign of abating.
Indeed, the war is only likely to become more prolonged and destructive if the international community stands on the sidelines. Without a no-fly zone, the vicious conflict could drag on for months, if not years, leaving Syria’s social fabric in tatters and its economy shattered.
A drawn-out civil war will also probably increase the influence of Islamists over a post-Assad Syria: the longer the war lasts, the more jihadists will be drawn to the Syrian conflagration.
The international community’s options are clear. Stand back in the face of a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, or give aerial protection to a popular attempt to oust a murderous regime.
The hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars lost in Iraq are testament to the costs of rash military adventurism in the name of regime change.
The Syrian equation cannot be compared to Iraq, though.
For well over two years, the Syrian people have been fighting and dying for their freedom. They have been shot in their streets and bombed in their homes for claiming basic political rights and liberties.
Imposing a no-fly zone would therefore not be an unprovoked outside intrusion; it would rather be essential protection for an organic and indigenous democratic uprising.
Try as it might, the international community cannot avoid getting its hands dirty in Syria.
To end the violence, our words must be backed with teeth and claws.
Another comment by tammy :
The CIS was Australia’s first ‘neo-liberal’ think tank. It was founded in 1976 by a Sydney maths teacher, Greg Lindsay. After struggling for financial support, Lindsay began meeting with Australian businessmen who wanted to establish an Australian version of the UK think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA). These businessmen included Hugh Morgan, then an executive director of Western Mining Corporation (WMC), John Bonython, Chairman of the Adelaide Advertiser Group, John Macleod, chief economist at mining company CRA, Douglas Hocking, Chief economist at Shell Australia, and John Brunner, an economist at mining company BHP.
According to Peter Coleman – former editor of Quadrant Magazine, “A turning point came in 1979 when Hugh Morgan, of Western Mining, invited Lindsay to Melbourne for talks. Together they worked the phones. Morgan persuaded nine (actually six) companies to chip in $5000 a year for five years.” [1] According to Paul Kelly in “The End of Certainty”, those six companies were WMC, CRA, BHP, Shell, Santos and the Adelaide Advertiser.”
… and the other comment by Skeptic:
We have “stayed the course” for 10 years in Iraq, and now 12 years in Afghanistan. Then in between, we took a minor detour and ventured into Libya.
So what did we achieve ? Are the results favourable ? Are situations any better than before we got involved ?
I believe the following reasons have determined that it is not to anyone’s interest to ever barge into the Middle East again, for a very long time. Here are the reasons…
(1). Public opinions
After all these years of miss-adventure, a large majority of the public finally come to the realisation that it was a damn waste of time and resources for nothing.
(2). Spins
All those positive spins and scare tactics used by the politicians had finally past their used-by-dates. People are beginning to see right through the bullsh.t. Now politicians are telling us that “…it has been too long…”. You know they are making sense !
(3). Financial
Wars may not have been the only contributing factors that caused the US financial woes. However, it certainly had carved a big enough hole in their budget to create some concerns in the politicians. Australia, even being so eager to join in the big tough brother in any war, is probably feeling some financial impacts now. It is a time when Wayne Swan and J.Gillard are both battling to save a couple a billions here and there to make their deficits look smaller !
(4). Political
As much as the ALP and the LNP wanted to create a united front in any wars, I bet some backbenchers are getting worry about the public opinions. They cannot afford to squander too much of their political capital. Another war in the M.E. will not be looked upon favourably.
(5). Military
Major General John Cantwell publicly stated the potential of PTSD of many of the returned and returning service personnel. As much as the top brass wanted to play down the significance or the total number of affected persons, I bet deep down, they are worrying about the costs as well as the effects of having fewer fit fighting numbers available.
(6). Will power
Look. They are tired, and we are too ! They have no stomach for another war. At least not for a long time. Perhaps a small lesson learned ? Maybe these wars did serve a small purpose after all ?
(7). Results
Judging by the net “tangible” results so far, if we are to believe what we saw in the 4-Corners last Monday night, it is a bloody waste of “everything”. I mean money, human lives, spins, etc. The lot !
You can cut, slice, dice in any which way, turn it around and slice, and dice, and cut it again, the fact is…It is a futile exercise, and as the Defence Minister Smith said…
“…easiest thing in the world to get in – hardest thing in the world to get out”.