by Gerald A. Honigman
Forget about the excuses for outside intervention in Libya that you've heard of…
While it's true that Libya's leader has used violence to secure his despotism against any assortment of opponents, one would be hard pressed to find a leader (besides in that tiny, much vilified, you-know-where of a nation that almost everyone loves to hate ) in that region of the world who has not already or who would not later follow Qadaffi's same game plan.
We live in a world of relativities, not absolutes. Given this, there are much bigger and nastier fish that need fried…
As I pointed out in my first analysis on this issue, Libya: 'Tis a Puzzlement http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/880, Qaddafi is a leader whom even his fellow Arab despots and medieval potentates love to hate (but for reasons actually to his credit…read that first article for some surprises)--so he became an acceptable target for the West's allegedly moral military intervention on behalf of innocents.
The problem is, on the scale of relativity in his general neighborhood, Qaddafi is surpassed big time by far worse tyrants.
The world watched, occasionally huffed and puffed, but did little else for over a half century as black Africans in the Sudan were raped, massacred, enslaved, displaced, and so forth by the millions by Arab and Arabized conquerors of the country. While the black, non-Muslim south may finally see a light at the end of its tunnel, since it's slated for independence this summer, the nightmare for the blacks--Muslim, but non-Arab nor Arabized enough--of the western Darfur region of the Sudan continues.
Why the swift action in Libya, where a very tiny fraction of the Sudan's number of atrocities have occurred (thank G_d), but the West still twiddles its fingers over Darfur and such? Would not a hundred or so cruise missiles into Khartoum have sent a message along with the same UN mandate to take all necessary means for the protection for all the Sudan's people?
Why Libya, and not the Sudan?
More bigger fish…
As the Middle East continues to erupt, how is it that Syria repeatedly gets away with the murders, political assassinations, subjugation, and so forth of Lebanon and the terror it has supported against almost all of its neighbors in an assortment of conflicts?
Syria has routinely subjugated millions of its own native Kurds and slaughtered many others, to this date depriving them of basic human rights, let alone political ones. Today, Kurds are increasingly under the threat of mass slaughter. Sadly, things have not changed much since Ismet Cherif Vanly wrote The Syrian Mein Kampf Against The Kurds back in 1968.
As for the Arabs of Syria, by now the expression, "Hama Solution," has become legendary.
The current leader's father, Hafez al-Assad, blasted the town in 1982 to quell an uprising. Between 30,000 to 40,000 Arabs were slaughtered. So, not that I wish it, but Qaddafi has a lot of catching up to do on the scale of nastiness relativity here as well. The Syrian Arab leaders have him beat by far--and are poised to continue doing so as scores of new victims are reported daily in Dana'a, Homs, Latakia, and so forth.
Given its Hama Solution history and reputation, why are the same threats and actions taken by the UN and the West against Libya now not being issued against the Butchers of Damascus?
Saving the best for last…
How can the West justify such intense action against Qaddafi--who, admittedly, has also been involved in some nasty things--but continue to act so pathetically feeble when dealing with terror and regional (if not wider)war's master enablers… Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Twelver Shi'a ayatollahs?
Besides actively supporting and arming (in collaboration with Syria) Hizbullah--allowing for the latter's power grab in Lebanon--the current Iranian leadership is a major supporter of Hamas as well…all three players dedicated to the utter destruction of the one sole place in the entire region where anyone is free to demonstrate, protest, and so forth without the risk of being massacred--Israel.
Kurds, Ahwazi Arabs, Baluchis, and others are routinely targeted, oppressed, and slaughtered, with more Kurds being readied for execution by hanging as this piece is being written.
Syrian Arabs not only met their match for barbarism in the Iraq of an Arab Saddam, but also in their current best buddies, the non-Arab Iranians. Peas of the same murderous pod, for sure…
If ever there was cause for outside intervention on behalf of a people longing to be free, that of Iran's Aryan masses-- after Ahmadinejad stole the election of 2009--certainly ranks among the highest of them all. They already got hoodwinked once before with the overthrow of the Shah when they wound up with an even worse autocratic theocracy instead.
Think post-Mubarak Egypt today--although polls show that most Egyptians actually look favorably upon the ayatollahs' counterparts there, like the Muslim Brotherhood. By the way, the latter, while Sunni Arab, are friendly towards the Shi'a Iranian leadership. Now think of an alliance between 160 million of just these two nations' peoples--with Israel as the main target.
Hundreds of protestors were slaughtered in Iran during 2009's Green Revolution, and thousands more were beaten and imprisoned… and all while President Obama, the United Nations, and the West stood by and watched. They were all as effective in changing events in that case as they've been in stopping Iran's march to develop nuclear weapons to destroy Israel and intimidate the rest of the region and the world with as well. Iran has recently sent warships through the Suez Canal en route to Latakia, Syria where it will be building a permanent naval base just up the road from Lebanon--which its surrogate, Hizbullah, now controls, and just a bit further away from Israel.
So, if any additional autocratic despotism needed to get nailed, it was/is certainly that of Iran. Without outside intervention, any hint of internal dissent and longing for freedom will continue to simply be murderously dealt with.
The problem is, unlike the current action in Libya, a move against Iran would have taken some real backbone to do--something neither the current American leader nor the rest of the folks involved possess. If they didn't first get an approval from the Arab League itself, they wouldn't have acted against Qaddafi either (not that they should have done so any way).
Realistically, Qaddafi--being the smaller fish--could theoretically fry easier…theoretically.
But any war--and the current Libyan conflict is a war--fought half-baked invites defeat.
Before one makes a decision to go to war, the overall good expected in its wake must be thought out very carefully. Yet too much of this action has been taken with too many unknowns at hand.
A coalition of some of the most powerful countries on Earth assembled to attack Qaddafi?
That has to make him smile a bit…
Yet the real monsters in Syria and Iran, who dwarf him in degrees of nastiness, remain unscathed and prepared to massacre and subjugate their own populations and others as well with impunity and ready to also unleash pure hell unto much of the rest of us when the time is ripe. The turmoil the latter will cause fits nicely into the Iranian Twelvers' plans to hasten the return of the Mahdi…
On the scale of relativity, while war is never a good choice, the wrong war really is exceptionally deplorable--especially when there are so many other more deserving fish practically begging to be dealt with.