The reports never mention the opposition forces that seek the overthrow of Assad. Like with Libya, the Nato nations want to interfere and force the government to fall. However, if a group of anarchists, or any other political group sought to overthrow the Obama government by force, it would be deemed treason and it would be suppressed by force and the perpetrators would be liable to execution. So why is it different with Syria? Obviously, the Obama government is already involved in the overthrow of the legal government of Libya by outside force. In former days, the crime against Libya would have been condemned as criminal aggression and under Nuremberg rules it should be treated as a crime against humanity.
In the case of Libya, the Russian and Chinese were promised that UN resolution 1973 was merely to use NATO military force to protect so-called innocent civilians. Once approved by UN, the British and French attacked the legal armed forces of the Legal Libyan government. The excuse was that the army of the government “obviously” must be attacked in order to protect civilians. After the 212 cruise missile strikes and the first two hundred jet fighter attacks against military installations inside of Libya, Vladimir Putin objected. However, it was too late. The drum beats of war had begun and the French and Brits would never accept that they were acting illegally. So they increased their attacks with assistance from USA and the government of Belgium. (It is very noteworthy that all three governments have a dirty colonial history of racial imperialism and genocide. (Belgium in Central Africa under King Leopold) However, the Academic community and the mass audience to Internet and TV reporting allowed themselves to condone criminal and wonton aggression because the “horrible” Gaddafi bombed a civilian aircraft over Lockerbie. (Noteworthy here is that the Brits accepted the actual perpetrator of that crime to gain asylum in Europe.!)
Again Putin objected but to no avail and the military organization known as NATO ferociously attacked the Libyan government . And the world, its response was silence or cheering. Silence because no one really cared about the Libyan people and cheering because of hatred for Gaddafi. By the way, NATO was originally meant to protect against Russian aggression. Amazing double standard that now they are open, obvious and arrogant aggressors.
All of this brings us to the current impasse with Syria. The Russians and Chinese were betrayed with UN resolution 1973 and so far they have vowed not to let that happen again. The NATO nations spent billions to wage war against Libya. They have no taste for that kind of expense again. They have expended their war budgets. And the USA? Carney’s admission of “defeat” is precursor to the coming proposal that the world community again take up war in the region. And don’t forget the Iranians.
Obama is right not to arm the rebels. Our own civil war dealt with the problem of outside forces as the British tried to interfere on the side of the South. However, Carney does not mention if the Brits, French and Belgians are also refraining from funding, and arming the rebel insurrectionists. In the light of NATO’s duplicity in the case of Libya, this writer thinks that they are secretly arming, advising and funding the insurrectionists.
When President Kennedy got involved with the war in Vietnam he decided to back the insurrection against President Diem. The result was the murder of the President of South Vietnam in the back of a truck. Kennedy, a co religionist with Diem, (both were Roman Catholic) intensely regretted the regicide of Diem. Sadly, he was himself assassinated by those who have no respect for law or morality. So far, the Obama government is content with political assassination by drone. And although the Obama government is guilty of complicity to murder Gaddafi, they have not committed to regicide by drone against Syrian President Assad. If they did, the morality would dictate that political assassination of government leaders is righteous and therefore permissible, for anyone who thought the other guy was a so-called dictator and therefore illegitimate. In these times when we express our politics forcefully and opening, I am sure that many individuals regard the government with suspicion. Yet, we do not advocate violent overthrow. What is moral for us should be our guide in dealing with others.