So what do we do?
Does the United States invade, like it did in Iraq, to oust a violent dictator propped up by a false democracy? No. Does the United States provide weapons for the rebels, like it did in Libya, hoping that the good guys come out on top? No. Do we try to convince someone else that it's their turn to do something? Have fun trying.
The world still has a bad taste in its mouth from our last foray into not-quite-war war. Generally speaking, sending an army into a country with the sole purpose of killing its leadership and setting up a new government means that you are going to war. We didn't. I'm not quite sure how but that's for another article.
Russia and China vetoed a UN resolution that sounded too much like what happened in Libya. Apparently saying you're trying to stop the violence and then going in with warships and bombs turned a couple of people off. Last time I checked, overstepping the mandate of UN resolutions and ousting a government was a prime example of war crimes. I'm still waiting for those indictments to come out of the ICC.
I guess the United States' hands are tied on this one. I almost forgot to mention that unilateral intervention in another Middle Eastern nation may get on Iran's last nerve and cause them to: 1) close the Strait of Hormuz and cause oil prices to (I'm guessing) double, 2) kick their nuclear weapons project into high gear and have a dirty bomb in (Still guessing) 8 months, and 3) retaliate with strikes on Israel. I believe that any of these three actions would be seen as an act of war by us and we would cry foul and attack Iran. Does anybody remember what happened the last time we attacked two middle eastern nations at the same time? Little thing called World War 1, you guys should read more books.
So who can stop the killing? Who can step in and make Bashar Al-Assad step down? I know! Vladimir Putin! He'll save the day! He'll make sure that a populace isn't politically quieted. He'll put his foot down and make sure that racial minorities are represented equally... oh wait... he doesn't even do that in his own country. He's also facing pressure from protesters who are completely unable to change the status quo. I could be wrong though, this guy thinks it's a good idea. I'm not very good at knowing what Putin plans to do though, I've never predicted an international incident of his before. Though I do, strangely, have Georgia on my mind.
Maybe Mini-Russia can do something. China has a long history of promoting human rights abroad and supporting democratization efforts... Foiled again! The country is going through the long process of trying to legitimize the exchange of power from Hu Jintao to Xi Jinping so I don't think they intend to strain the will of the People any more than they have to. I seem to recall that there is also a small group of people trying to get political recognition from the Chinese, also known as the populations of Tibet, Taiwan, and China. This guy thinks China is being hypocritical by vetoing a measure that supports the safety of Syrians because it supports the safety of Syrians. Really? I've never heard of a politician saying one thing while meaning something completely different. See: Politics.
Ok, so we have established that the US can't do anything. Russia and China won't do anything. Perhaps a neighboring country with similar religious beliefs and historical distrust of outside powers. Turkey, you say? They have been trying to get into the EU for a while and this would look REALLY good on their resume. They seem to be completely disinterested. Might as well be high school Spanish class...
I hate to be the "blogger of no," so I guess I should say what should happen and what will happen. Otherwise why would you read this right?
Turkey and Iraq should close their borders to any weapons trafficking and allow only refugees out, nobody in. Israel will have to be told to stay out of the issue but I don't think that Jordan or Lebanon will want to face the impending sanctions of joining what should be termed an internal struggle. This is where it gets nasty. What follows is called a revolution. Not a coup, an overthrow, or an ousting. A revolution. The kind that the Russians and French know about. The kind where the currently governing don't get to go to another country to keep pecking at the legitimacy of the soon-to-be governing. The kind where lots and lots of people die. It's ugly and it's not fair. It does, however, get to a finish sooner than thousands of people dying unarmed in the streets because they are waiting for the President to step down or the rest of the world to intervene.
What will happen is much less clean. The problem will continue to be discussed in committees by men and women who are not Syrian. The Arab League will continue to send in observers who will observe mass killings. Eventually the people will give up like they did in Iran because oil money is good. In a few years everyone will forget that any of this happened and thousands will have died in vain.
I, personally, am much more worried about Iran getting a nuke... (I don't know if the sarcasm came through or not so I'll mention that the last statement was satirical. It destroys the joke but proves the point.)
Posts
