Onward to Damascus

Mark Brophy, WSU

Having committed to another "War of Muslim Liberation" (thank Bill Kristol for this inspiring phrase), on the pretext of protecting Libyan "civilians" as they clash with government forces, by what rationally consistent justification can President Obama abstain from rescuing their similarly "democratic" protesting cousins from very similar repression in Syria? American foreign policy has become so confused under Obama, that it is natural to ask why the Gulf monarchies and other authoritarian states remain ungraced by American gunboat democracy, while Libya is receiving several hundred million dollars worth of humanitarian missile bombardment.

Of course, Mr. Obama is not wholly to blame for this inconsistent Team America: World Police mentality, as his predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton also had a predilection for poorly thought out military endeavors, usually regretted after the fact.
The Baathist regime of Syria is, according to the impartial liberal internationalists at the New York Times, among the "most oppressive" in the Middle East, as well as kin to the despised and deposed Baathists of Iraq, who were earnestly purged by the US occupational authorities. With many Syrian civilians confirmed dead by Western media, despite the regime's obfuscatory efforts, it seems inevitable that America will be called on by "democracy advocates" to commit our weaponry and soldiers' blood to another mission of Middle-Eastern freedom.

After Syria, why not on to Saudi Arabia, another oppressive and undemocratic regime, intermittently involved in repression of protesting "civilians"?

Somehow, I feel that suggestion would not go over well amongst the political class of the U.S. and our European allies.

It is obviously militarily and politically untenable to ride to the rescue of every troublemaker in the smoldering Arab world - yet this is the obvious conclusion to the Obama administration's stated foreign policy philosophy. It is certainly true that the US plays this card selectively and quite often, but the brazenness of our pick-and-choose philosophy of war is especially on display during this current situation.

Attempting to regain influence in the Middle-East, through an assumption of gratitude that we assume the locals owe us, is one of the foremost recurring US foreign policy wall bangers. But the predictable necessity of leaving Syria's bloodied protestors to their fate casts doubt on the already shaky reasoning behind the Libya escapade. Once again, the greatest imperial juggernaut in the history of the world seems to be flailing about without any real idea as to what it's doing.