Libya and Syria Still on Fire with Iran in the Background

Misurata, Libya Monday, April 25, 2011 - Rebels believed to be on brink of crushing victory.  Libya's army seems to be made up of foreigners, children and whatever riff-raff or desperadoes are willing to trade their lives for what is becoming, literally, blood money (here if you tube won't load).

Check the Egyptian Chronicles for multiple videos from Syria including artillery and tanks being moved in to Daraa.  Reports official for 25 dead, but other reports suggesting that the number of dead are greater, they just can't be picked up off the street due to sniper fire.  Fog of War.

On Syria and Iran:

For Iran, its ties with Syria represent far more than just a rare friend in a region dominated by Arab suspicions of Tehran's aims. Syria is Iran's great enabler: a conduit for aid to powerful anti-Israel proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
Should Assad's regime fall, it could rob Iran of a loyal Arab partner in a region profoundly realigned by uprisings demanding more freedom and democracy.
"Iran and Syria represent the anti-US axis in the region. In that respect, Iran wants to ensure that Syria remains an ally," said Shadi Hamid, director of research at The Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. "The problem is that Iran's foreign policy has become quite inconsistent."

In the meantime, Iran is under another cyber attack and they are not nearly as good as the Chinese or the US at managing those attacks.

Summary only...

United States Foreign Policy: On Libya, Liberty and the Flight From Leadership

In a response to a post and commentary at Castle Argghhh! on the current efforts in Libya. 

Part of post in question:

It no longer matters how we got here. We intervened, and that changed everything.

By attacking armored columns with the “No Fly Zone” aircraft, we ensured the survival of the poorly-equipped-and-untrained rebellion in Libya against the much-better-armed-and-trained loyalist forces. That’s the world we live in, and those are the conditions we must deal with.

Whether or not the US, and to a lesser extent NATO, could have gotten the same in terms of strategic interests by doing nothing, by buying off or threatening Kaddafi, whether this was of a high enough order of national interest to do when balanced against the risks/means available/stratcomm incoherence is no longer the question. It has become “What do we do with the new conditions?

 To which John only added:

My closing thoughts - I'll reiterate one of my philosophical problems with US military power (stated from the perspective of a practitioner of same) - the danger of making it too easy to kill people, means you are too likely to kill people. If it isn't worth dying for, it isn't worth killing for. The point is not that I object to making war less lethal to the people we put in harm's way, or even more lethal to the target of our war making, it's that making it safer for us to kill has made us more likely to kill. Our doctrinal and policy analysis and frankly, fundamental ethics on the issue aren't anywhere near as advanced and refined as our technical ability.

 My response follows:

Read More >>

Summary only...

Libya, Obama, Islamists and War for Oil

It is difficult not to agree with Barnett's analysis on US intervention in Libya. To wit, that interfering in Libya may make the "Arabs" angry over continued conspiracy of American Imperialism, but, to do nothing will have the same results and worse, like in the days of Rwanda, we might find it difficult to face ourselves in the morning.

We let this go down and we'll be hated anyway, and we hate ourselves for letting it happen. So what is the big difference? There will be no working with the guy after this anyway, so what is the downside? The Saudis hate him, because of the hit he tried on Abdullah.

There is the problem of do we actually know who is who and who we would be helping?

Read More >>

Summary only...

Libya Revolution: Not Peaceful At All

Just catching AJ in English on the Libyan situation. Seems that the peaceful protesters have decided that it is time to meet force with force. They overtook a security site that was being used to shoot at them (possibly killing a dozen or more from that position). They are saying they are going to kill the soldiers they captured.

And, just reported, the military base that the revolutionaries overtook when it "surrendered"...the revolutionaries are threatening to kill 150 soldiers if the government does not accede to their demands.

Of course, as Blackfive posted, peaceful revolutions are only really possible when the ruling opponent is constrained against violence due to their own morality or that fousted on them from outside forces. Libya has neither. Gadaffi's forces and various opponents of the revolt have been shooting, beating and blowing up whoever they can reach. It was just a matter of time before it went from a "peaceful" revolution to all out civil war.

Stand by.

Summary only...