Nowhere Man

If you were hit in the head with a brick and spent the last year in a coma, then you'd have a viable reason as to why you haven't heard anything about the Arab Spring. As of right now, the Arab Spring, as a whole movement, is probably the largest pro-democracy movement the world has ever seen. As of right now, the formerly dictatorial regimes in Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya have all fallen, whether it was through public pressure or rebel insurgency. Also as of right now, many countries still face huge public opposition, notably Syria, Lebanon, and Bahrain.

I suppose the question I want to ask is, does NATO's intervention in Libya to help overthrow Moammar Ghaddafi create a precedent?

To put it in more eloquent terms, because of the supposed mission in Libya where NATO promised to arm and defend civilians with the express purpose of ending the human rights abuses in Libya, is it now incumbent upon NATO to intervene in other countries in the middle of their Arab Spring uprising?

(Unfortunately, the 2nd half of this did not save, so I'll try to reconstruct what I wrote from memory.)

In my opinion, yes, NATO has the obligation of intervention in the Arab Spring, especially in cases where there are gross human rights violations. In Syria right now, there have been multiple cases reported of the Syrian army massacring entire villages, shelling towns with mortars, entering houses and gunning down families, etc.

So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? What do they have in common?

• A dictator? [Yes.]
• A rebel army? [Yup.]
• Human rights violations? [Definitely.]
• International condemnation? [As always.]
  
• A large oil cache? [Uh huh.]

So what is the difference between then and now? Elections. The US is the principle actor in NATO, typically authorizing and overseeing its actions. Obama knows that he has lost a good share of his support over the past 4 years due to his inability to close Guantanamo Bay, his support of nuclear energy, bailouts, etc. He also knows that if he takes action against Syria, the Republicans, to the malaise and exasperation of the non-FOX viewers, will lambaste him for "wasting tax dollars" or some other reason. (I'm quite sure that if a Republican were in office and were to take action against Syria, they would justify it as "ensuring democracy" or whatnot. Partisanship is tiresome.)

If I were President Obama, I would have done away with his ill-advised attempts at partisanship years ago and acted like the man who had so much promise so long ago and who was given the Nobel Peace Prize simply for not being George Bush. The Republicans will berate you no matter what. And, you know what, you're the president; you have access to the greatest resources in the world. Use them. Sway the American people.

Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has been intransigent and unwilling to yield, it falls upon the international community to act on behalf of the people being massacred, especially NATO, since there is now the idea that the large democratic countries will support democratic movements.

So, NATO should at least show the same support for the Syrian rebels that they showed for the Libyan ones, just to show that for once, election-time doesn't predominate above what should be done.

That's all for now,
Das Flüg