Sorry I missed last week's post. I'll be back on normal schedule as soon as possible, I promise.
It's hard to believe that the Arab Spring movement has only been active for a little more than a year. Yet in that relatively short amount of time we've seen perhaps the greatest upheavals and revolutions since the fall of the Soviet Union. Three dictators who likely never imagined a day that they would be deposed have toppled from power. Meanwhile, the people of Syria have tried to add a fourth name to that list: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. However, Assad has no plans to step down like Mubarak did in Egypt, and it appears that his government was much more prepared for a potential civil war than Ghaddafi's Libya.
From the beginning, people in the media and in politics, as well as a number of Syrian-American organizations, have been calling for more active steps by the US government to help depose Assad. Those voices are louder than ever now, and include such notables as 2008 Republican Presidential candidate John McCain. And certainly, no one in the administration wants to be seen as either weak when dealing with foreign dictators or uncaring about the plight of the oppressed citizens of Syria. Not in an election year, anyway. But on the other hand, jumping into an unpopular military action has a way of bringing about unintended consequences, and if that action is taken too early those consequences may hurt re-election chances. It all comes down to the ruthless calculus of politics.
There are some who are bringing up Libya as an example of NATO intervention that helped bring down a totalitarian regime, but that is a dangerous game for several reasons. First of all, the Libya intervention never had the kind of support among the American people that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had. Second, Ghaddafi had a history of taking violent action against citizens of the United States and our interests, especially during the Cold War (something used by great effect by propagandists for the military action, who could bring up President Ronald Reagan's own military actions against Libya to block protests from the political right). Assad's regime, on the other hand, has engaged in no active campaigns against the United States (although they have been very supportive of groups that have committed acts against our allies, particularly Israel). Going to "kinetic military action" with a country that has never had an official beef against us could establish (or, rather, strengthen) a nasty precedent. Third, Libya has seen a dramatic collapse in social cohesion since the death of Ghaddafi, with a major portion of the country declaring semi-autonomy. We could actually see a civil war brought about because of the fall of Ghaddafi mere months after bringing the previous conflict to a close. Syria lies at the heart of perhaps the most volatile region on the planet, and such destabilization could cascade into other countries or lead to aggressive expansion on the part of Syria's neighbors willing to take advantage of the situation to gain territory and resources. It also must be considered that Syria is a much more powerful foe than Ghaddafi. Whereas the Libyan government stood largely on its own during the civil war, Syria has the explicit backing of Iran and Russia. This extra diplomatic weight has also translated to better technology for the Syrian military, particularly with the Russian-supplied air defense network.
The American military is not excited about the possibility of entering the conflict for several reasons. The first, as stated above, is Syria's air defense grid that would make a bombing campaign like the one that happened in Libya exponentially more complicated, in large part because the key structures for this network are located in or near large population centers and collateral damage would be unavoidable. Also, the Pentagon recognizes that military action in Syria could very easily escalate into a much larger proxy war against Iran or even Russia. Even the option of supplying and training the Syrian opposition is unpopular because of the deep divisions (not to mention divided loyalties and questionable motives) within the opposition movement. Military officials also expressed their disdain for the heated emotional rhetoric about potential intervention that ignores the basic reality on the ground.
Yes, it sucks that Assad is killing so many of his own people, but trying to give him the boot may lead to greater casualties and destruction. For a good analysis of the situation and the possibilities, watch the following segment of GBTV's "Real News": http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-of-assad-real-news-panel-on-how-going-into-syria-could-exacerbate-the-ongoing-internal-conflict/
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Monday, March 5, 2012
Death Before Dishonor Redux
Before I begin, I must apologize for my lengthy absence. My computer decided to take a little vacation without me, but everything should be fixed now and we can continue.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Last April, I wrote about the fundamental disconnect between the traditional Western ideal of personal honor and the Islamic ideal of collective honor. At the time, the conversation was relevant because of the reaction of militant Islamists to "Pastor" Terry Jones' burning of a Koran. Well, the past is seeming to repeat itself with a renewed series of terrorist attacks and violent riots sparked by the burning of a Koran at a NATO base in Afghanistan. But there are some new elements to this story that bear a closer look.
First, while Jones' act was an intentional insult, the incident at the NATO base was an accident. A collection of books, including Korans, from a prison lending library were being used by prisoners to pass messages to one another by writing in the margins. When this was discovered, the books were discarded and the soldiers responsible for disposing of the trash were told to get rid of them. Of course, these men are soldiers, not Koranic scholars, and they threw the whole collection of books into a fire pit. It was Afghanis working at the site that spotted the Korans in the flames and rushed to spread word of the Americans' "insult," which led to a series of attacks and riots that have left six Americans and thirty others dead. Gee, what great allies we have. Why didn't the Afghanis tell the soldiers not to put the Korans in the fire in the first place? Because that would deny them an excuse to kill and maim, and that's just how a lot of Afghanis like to get down. What is interesting is that disposal of desecrated Korans by fire is the accepted practice by Islamic scholars. So, in essence, the militants are rioting and murdering because we followed the crazy rules they put in place.
Now, it should go without saying that the traditional ideals of honor are not monolithic even within the same society. While the American military and its allies have shown tremendous courage and honor on the ground, the political classes have practically fallen over themselves trying to apologize for an accident rather than demand that murderous scumbags are held accountable for their actions. Our enemies have noticed this weakness and are pressing it with all of their strength. The Taliban launched an assault at Bagram Airfield, claiming of course to be doing it in simple retaliation for the insult to their Koran. Oh, okay. So what was their excuse before the Koran burning? Pastor Jones, Geert Wilders, Pope Benedict XVI, or Danish cartoons? It's not like the Taliban were just sitting around doing nothing until they heard about some guys at a NATO base having a Koran barbecue (I hear the pork's delicious). So why did President Obama apologize? I mean, it's getting to the point where President Obama is reflexively apologizing whenever he sees a Muslim on the street (or, more likely, on a golf course).
To add insult to injury, the Afghani government is demanding prosecution for the NATO personnel involved. And, in a stunningly gutless move, NATO is seriously considering throwing these poor men to the wolves in order to preserve the all-important goal of "Peace," whatever that means. Islamic clerics have demanded a public trial to condemn the soldiers in accordance with Afghani law, threatening a "storm of fury" if their demands are not met. What I would like to know is what these soldiers could possibly be charged with? NATO forces do not officially operate under Sharia law (yet), so "insulting the Holy Koran" is probably out. And it's hard to see how someone could charge these soldiers with "dereliction of duty" for following orders?
Now, just try to imagine the utter chaos that would take place if Christians discovered that Bibles were being burned by NATO troops. Why, we might even write letters of disapproval or call our representatives. Horrifying, to be sure. Except, the military has been burning any unsolicited Bibles or similar religious materials printed in Pashto and Dari, the two most common languages in Afghanistan. That decision was made because "it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims," according to Lt. Col. Mark Wright of the Department of Defense. So we have to walk on eggshells to avoid making radical Islamists angry. I thought the point of this war was to kill these guys. Making them angry would be a great way to get them to come out of their hidey holes. Otherwise we're just waiting around for the next attack with whatever excuse the militants find convenient.
If Afghanistan is ever to become something more than a backwards hellhole, its people and leadership need to take responsibility. I find it interesting that the same people in the Afghan government who are screaming for blood about this matter are also the ones interested in peace talks with the Taliban. You know, the people who videotaped decapitations so they could put it on YouTube. Curiously, that never seems to come up in all of the condemnation over the Koran incident. Our diplomats, meanwhile, need to stop trying to make the United States and its allies the scapegoats for everything that goes wrong in Afghanistan. It takes two sides to fight a war, but right now only one side seems interested in fighting. Maybe it's time that we started focusing on the real enemies, for a change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)