Many wonder why the U.S. seems to be resting on its laurels on the Syrian crisis when the Libyan crisis didn’t take much discussion at all, at least by comparison. Israel is certainly a factor – no U.S. president would risk turning control of a country so close to Israel and Hezbollah over to a Muslim Brotherhood, at least not without a treaty already in place. But there are two others: 1. Muammar Gaddafi was a global terrorist whose legitimacy never existed. 2. Only Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has the political appetite for it at home.
As of yesterday, McCain was the first U.S. senator to recommend air strikes on Syria, establishing safe havens there as they did in Benghazi, Libya. He is convinced that the Syrian city of Homs is already lost and, in the absence of a political solution or any other foreign nation willing to step up, the only way to hold off President Bashar Assad’s military is with foreign air strikes. He also urged the involvement of NATO and Arab League allies, for good measure.
I continue to attribute the bulk of the success of the Libyan revolution to the organization of the rebels. Whether because of poor timing or a lack of resources, no such organization exists in Syria. They don’t have a National Transitional Council. They don’t even have a solitary figure to regard as a natural replacement for Assad. There’s little chance that they would be able to form a crack fighting force under these circumstances.
McCain’s defensive argument might make sense if it were the job of the United States to deal with other countries’ despots. The fact is that American and Israeli interests were better served when Assad was just a president who didn’t like dissenters. The more regional stability there, the better for the West. I am absolutely not defending Assad’s actions – he has shown his true colors in this crackdown – but this explains the slowness on the part of the U.S. Let that be a reminder to everyone who thinks President Obama doesn’t care about those people.
There is more hope for a diplomatic solution in Syria than there ever was in Libya, but not much of one so far, and there’s no way around laws prohibiting assassination of foreign heads of state. If neither diplomacy nor Assad’s death happens and the U.S. is desperate to assure a pro-Western, non-Assad Syrian president, air strikes might end up being the best way to go. I don’t imagine McCain relishes the idea himself, but at least he’s honest about the prospects.
As long as the White House seeks congressional authorization and NATO participation, I will grit my teeth and go with it. Reducing interventionism would be so much easier if the world had fewer assholes.
