John R. Houk
© March 1, 2012
The current Syrian government – a client State of Iran – has been massacring its own citizens for months now. Unlike in Libya, the Obama solution is to look the other way. Why?
My best guess is that the consequences of aiding Syrian revolutionaries (the Sunni-Islam majority weary of the Alawite-Islam minority) have too many unknowns for President BHO to enter the fray to stop the genocide.
If BHO actively supports the revolutionaries will Iran have the guts to send troops into Syria to defend its client? And if Iran sends troops will Israel use the excuse to enter Syria militarily because of Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map? Will the real Lebanese government in the form of Hezbollah offer military support to Assad’s Syria since Hezbollah is both a client of Iran and Shias like Alawites are Shias? Again, will Hezbollah action force Israel’s entrance into Syria?
I am sure there are other possible consequences that BHO does not want to deal with in an election year; nonetheless you can see that revolution in Syria could be the first domino leading to at least a Middle East regional war or worst WWIII.
If Obama Foreign Policy spinelessness continues his indecision might tip the first domino making things worse in a war somewhat like Britain and France waited on Hitler to have some common sense until the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939.
Below are some Leslie J. Sacks thoughts on the slaughter in Iran.
Syria - A Minefield
By Leslie J. Sacks
Sent: Feb 28, 2012 at 8:10 PM
Website: Strength and Tolerance
Senator Clinton's vocal (though not military or financial) support as well as the White House's ambivalent backing for the Free Syria Coalition, now after 7,000 deaths and a year of violent revolution, may come back to haunt us.
Too little, too late. Early sanctions and support may have saved most of these lives. Yet in Libya by contrast, with a neutered, secular and defanged Gadhafi, the West intervened in an ambiguous revolution that brought NATO to the same side as Al Qaeda elements and the Muslim Brotherhood.
The same dangers exist in Syria, multiplied.
Already Hamas and its prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, have thrown their weight behind the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad, the groups long-time patron and host. Also the leader of Al Qaeda, the Sunni aligned global terrorist movement, as well as Muslim Brotherhood, have thrown their support behind the Syrian opposition. I can't imagine Hillary Clinton is entirely comfortable with her radical new Sunni partners in the expanding anti-Assad opposition.
Daniel Pipes of the venerable Middle East Forum writes (Syria: Arguing for U.S. Inaction) that inaction by America may be the best policy. Naïve sentimentalism and humanitarian goals may just indeed result in far worse consequences. Some Sunni revolutionaries in Syria, when asked as to their plans about the Alawites after the fall of Assad, reflected quite honestly that they would merely "kill them of course". In the insanity of the Middle East, this is a tried and tested normalcy.
Assad's Alawite minority (12%) dominate a Syria of 23 million people, controlling the army, sources of revenue and power. They have oppressed and murdered their way for decades now, first with Assad senior, Hafez, and then with his vicious but spineless son Bashar.
Remember that Hafez Al-Assad (President from 1971-2000) and leader of the Baath party massacred at least 10,000 fellow Syrians in Hama in 1982 (some sources cite 20-40,000 casualties) in putting down protests there.
Were the despicable Assad to be violently deposed, we could expect a backlash against the Alawites, the Christians (9%) and other minorities, that would make historical Hama and current casualties pale into insignificance. Bosnian ethnic cleansing would seem mild by comparison.
A weak but continuing Assad dynasty, beset with troubles, forced to eventually compromise and share power, may indeed be the least damaging and dislocating solution:
· Syrian supporters - Russia, China, Iran and Hezbollah will continue to be embarrassed and compromised
· More Sunni anger at Assad and his Shiite wetnurse, Iran means less vitriol for America and Israel
· The more Syria and Iran are tied together in this no-win situation, the less likely they will ferment trouble and the more likely Iran's green revolution will be emboldened.
· Genocidal post-revolution tendencies in Syria will be stayed
· Ultimately as Daniel Pipes succinctly puts it, it may serve us to see the rotting corpse of Syria remain chained to an intransigent Iran for a while longer.
On Syria – Obama Indecision may be Worse than Decisiveness
John R. Houk
© March 1, 2012
Syria - A Minefield
Leslie Sacks | 10550 Wilshire Blvd | Los Angeles | CA | 90049