Hillary Inconsistency: Need Syrian Consent for Troops – Why Different From Libya?

Different Thug, Different Policy?

I must admit that I don’t quite understand this one yet, because while we entered the fray in Libya on the basis of the Samantha Power argument of a “Responsibility to Protect,” the idea that nations had a duty to protect a people from a tyrannical regime, this same theory doesn’t apparently apply in Syria.  Instead, after a meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister, Hillary Clinton said in a joint press conference with Foreign Minister Ahment Davutoglu that there would be no troops sent to Syria without the consent of the Syrian government.  Why is one brutal thug’s regime exempt, while the other was not?  While leftist protesters marched under the banner of “no blood for oil” in successive wars initiated by Republican presidents, there’s no similar outrage now that it has become patently obvious that this is the only justification for the differential in policy: Syria has no oil. Libya has plenty.  It’s either that, or something more nefarious.

This is another example of the apparent contradictions in Obama’s foreign policy.  When the people of Iran were rising up, Obama said nothing, and did nothing.  In Syria, we’re getting some words from the State Department, but nothing of substance, and it seems there’s no intention on the part of this administration to have a consistent policy.  We surely didn’t wait for Gaddafi’s consent before bombing in Libya.  We were trying to bomb him!  Meanwhile, Assad is every bit as monstrous as Gaddafi, and perhaps worse, yet there we are wearing kid gloves.  This doesn’t make any sense at all unless one begins to account for the differences between the two countries, or leaders.

Is there some reason the Obama administration favors Syria’s Assad?  If one applies the principles of the idea called “Responsibility to Protect(R2P,) one must wonder as thousands of civilians in Syria have been murdered in the streets over the last few months.  If Gaddafi was a rabid dog who needed to be removed for the safety of his country’s people, why not Assad?  Why is he exempt from a similar fate?

Don’t misunderstand: I am not advocating an attack by NATO on Syria, but I find it curious that the same people who less than one year ago could not wait to pound Gaddafi into submission before he was slaughtered at the hands of a mob(as he deserved) are now reluctant about treating Bashar al-Assad in similar fashion.  This discontinuity in policy means something, just as the reluctance to criticize Ahmedinejad in Iran meant something, but it’s not yet clear what the meaning is.  Cynical folk would point to the Libyan oil, but even if that is a factor, I don’t think it’s the only one.  Something else must account for this differential in policy.  Could it be that Assad has something else Obama wants?  Could it be related to the proximity of Syria to Israel?

Time will tell, but when one sees such distinct and different actions by lefties in similar circumstances, one knows there’s something more to the story.  Leftists are simply too stuck in their ideological ruts to act this way without ulterior motives.

Like Be the first one who likes this post!
  • http://gravatar.com/janthames jan

    I believe the reason for the inconsistency is that Obama saw an easy way to get rid of Qaddafi and his son will probably go the same way. A week or two before Obama went into Libya Qaddafi commented on the news that his friendship with Jeremiah Wright and Farrakhan would not be revealed and leave Obama untouched by this newsworthy revelation.
    In other words, Qaddafi knows the real Obama and he told Obama thru the news that he would not reval his confidences. That is what the difference. See if you can find it in the news. Probably been removed as Obama does.

  • fred johnson

    Thats a very nice uniform CHAIRMAN CLINTON is wearing, Don't you think?

  • Barry

    Mark, I'm sorry this comment is not relevant to the post it's attached to because I couldn't find on your website how to contact you directly so I'm posting it here.
    I was just curious about your opinion on Liz Cheney. I have just been watching her guest-host the Hannity show on Fox News and my impression of her is that, yes, she's a bit bland and unexciting as hosts go but I think she's very genuine and honest in her opinions and delivery of the issues.
    What are your thoughts?

    Thanks.

    -Barry

    • http://www.markamerica.com MarkAmerica

      Barry, She seems okay to me. Frankly, I think she's no more bland than Hannity, and in some respects more conservative.