![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsObama authorizes secret support for Syrian rebels
First of all, that's hardly a surprise and I don't know what's so "secret" there (since it's known by everybody). Assad is in a similar situation to the one Gaddafi found himself in the last months of his rule. Of course, Syria is not Libya, it's a much smaller country and much more densely populated, more diverse ethnically and culturally, and meanwhile more homogeneous in terms of government control over the territory and the populace, as the central power and the military have a very firm grip.
Many would argue that for Assad, the writing is already on the wall. Well I'd be more cautious about that, though. It's still very unclear how long he'll hold to power. A couple of weeks ago the FSA were looking very likely to bring the regime down, but the army has since hit back very hard, including with aircraft and tanks, and they've regained much of what they had lost. In fact, as Fareed Zakaria said on The Daily Show, the rebels have hardly held a single city for more than a day.
And then, there's the concern that direct financing and arming certain groups of the rebels could backlash very badly, as it happens so often with short-sighted foreign policy. The main concern here is that the militant Sunni groups (including ones associated with Al Qaeda) could be seeking for ways to steer the uprising to their own ends. Which is one of the reasons that the response of the West (particularly the US) to this situation has been so cautious thus far. In fact, Obama's order explicitly forbids providing the rebels with "lethal" equipment for this very reason.
But in a more general sense, it's logical that the rebels' response to the regime's brutal suppression of the initially peaceful protests would give them the moral high ground in this struggle, and ultimately the international support they need. Even if they insist over and over that they do not want direct foreign intervention on their territory.
First of all, that's hardly a surprise and I don't know what's so "secret" there (since it's known by everybody). Assad is in a similar situation to the one Gaddafi found himself in the last months of his rule. Of course, Syria is not Libya, it's a much smaller country and much more densely populated, more diverse ethnically and culturally, and meanwhile more homogeneous in terms of government control over the territory and the populace, as the central power and the military have a very firm grip.
Many would argue that for Assad, the writing is already on the wall. Well I'd be more cautious about that, though. It's still very unclear how long he'll hold to power. A couple of weeks ago the FSA were looking very likely to bring the regime down, but the army has since hit back very hard, including with aircraft and tanks, and they've regained much of what they had lost. In fact, as Fareed Zakaria said on The Daily Show, the rebels have hardly held a single city for more than a day.
And then, there's the concern that direct financing and arming certain groups of the rebels could backlash very badly, as it happens so often with short-sighted foreign policy. The main concern here is that the militant Sunni groups (including ones associated with Al Qaeda) could be seeking for ways to steer the uprising to their own ends. Which is one of the reasons that the response of the West (particularly the US) to this situation has been so cautious thus far. In fact, Obama's order explicitly forbids providing the rebels with "lethal" equipment for this very reason.
But in a more general sense, it's logical that the rebels' response to the regime's brutal suppression of the initially peaceful protests would give them the moral high ground in this struggle, and ultimately the international support they need. Even if they insist over and over that they do not want direct foreign intervention on their territory.
(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 19:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 19:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 19:55 (UTC)( ^ Here. I used the five circles (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1512911.html).)
(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 20:37 (UTC)GaddafiAssad, then what.(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 20:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 21:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 00:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 18:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 12:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 15:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 17:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/8/12 22:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 07:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 16:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 18:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 00:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 07:45 (UTC)Regime change is so fun, yo!
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 13:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/8/12 11:31 (UTC)