Following a revolution like the Arab spring is difficult. The major conflicts, from a media coverage perspective, seem to be coming in large waves. Tunisia gave birth to the revolution, whose influence made its way toward Egypt and the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak. The global conversation then switched over to the pending conflict in Yemen for only a brief time before eventually switching over to Libya. The recent protests in Syria, though similar in spirit to other mid-size revolts, are actually a game-changer that initiates a whole new chapter in the Arab Spring.
According to the Syrian Human Information Rights Group, more than 400 Syrians have been killed since last Monday. Growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities across the country to demand political freedom and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have responded by open firing on them. In response, many people have criticized the Obama administration, most notably The Washington Post, which called Obama's lack of action ""shameful.""
These voices do have a point but seem to miss the bigger picture. Asking why we're not in Syria is a good question. However, asking why we're in Libya but not in Syria is an infinitely better one that really starts to reveal the darker side of U.S. foreign policy. Arguments for invading Libya and Syria, which I'll get into in a second, are almost always stronger for Syria. When you combine that with the fact that Libya is a major oil exporter and Syria is not, you start to see just how just how incoherent our military interventions truly are.
Now let's do a little comparison between Libya and Syria. Just about every argument that led to intervention in Libya applies even more to Syria. First, there's the theoretical danger of genocidal repression. It's true that a major factor for entering Libya was due to its leader Col. Qaddafi foaming at the mouth with rage. But when it comes to lunatics, al-Assad takes the cake. We know this because in 1982 the Assad government committed one of the worst incidents of violence in the bloody history of the Middle East. Forty thousand people were murdered to crush demonstrations against the dictatorship.
If the humanitarian case was appealing, wait untill you hear about the national interest argument for intervention. Syria is currently Iran's closest ally in the Arab world and has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. Plus, with Syria's regime out of the picture, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict becomes a bit easier to deal with. Saudi Arabia has made its disapproval of Obama's foreign policy clear and this could be a way to patch things up.
So when supporters of the Libyan intervention like Sen. .John McCain, R-Ariz., oppose intervention in Syria, I get a bit confused. Why would McCain oppose an intervention that is even more likely to cause bloodshed than Libya? Perhaps McCain knows that Syria is a slippery slope that might not be worth the risk (especially since there's no oil to be lost). If we do choose to intervene, an even scarier slew of possibilities presents itself. What if the conflict spills over into Lebanon? What if Iran get's involved? You start to see the domino effect that these wars in the Middle East tend to have. You can also probably see why I'm a bit cautious about whipping out the war drums just yet.
Unfortunately, McCain's hypocritical objections won't matter much if the violence in Syria remains. The Obama administration will soon be forced to play its hand. Either way the president knows by now that he's stepped in some shit. He's going to catch some harsh criticisms regardless of his decision. Let's hope it forces his administration to take a deep breath before making any big decisions regarding the Syrian conflict.
I hope people understand that I don't take this anti-interventionist stance lightly. I've seen the Syrian protest footage on YouTube. One video featured a man whose jaw was simply gone because he wondered into the sight of a sniper. In that same video there's footage of a child missing the back part of his skull, as he dies in his father's arms. I know what those horrific kinds of images inspire in us to act. We want to be Superman. We want to fly in there with our weapons and take care of the ""bad guys."" However, history has shown that it's just not that simple. Regime change is not a smooth process and entering a fourth war will come with a hefty price.
Mike Kujak is a sophomore with an undeclared major. The Daily Cardinal welcomes all feedback. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com
