(The first part of this article was written more than a month ago; so the content may be a little outdated because the situation has changed and now it is too late to stop the war; but I think it is still worth reading.)
----------------------------------------------------
I have been arguing with those NATO action supporters for quite a long time.
Now lets try a different approach, applying a little logic, asking three questions about the origin of this war:
----------------------------------------------------
-- (1). Does the rebel have choice?
-----The answer is no. From the beginning of the uprising, they either overthrow the government, or cracked down by it; and without Western military intervention, they would have zero chance to win.
-- (2). Does Gaddafi have choice?
-----The answer is no either. The large-scale social reforms that the protesters first demanded would take years to achieve and the protesters definitely had no patience to wait; and the immediately followed violence mixed with separatists and Al Qaeda militants left him no choice.
-- (3). Does NATO have choice?
-----The answer is yes, of course! and Plenty of choices! all of which were better than NATO killing Gaddafi. The U.S. had special leverage on Gaddafi personally, it should have been a golden opportunity for us to show to both sides how necessary it is for a country to have democracy in order to solve their political dispute peacefully; meanwhile we could be friends with both sides; since both sides couldnt afford to lose American support.
---------------------------------------------------------
But now, the West has little choice. We have to continue to support the rebel no matter what they will do in future. We have lost leverage!
---------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, from day one the rebel has never trusted the West. On March 3, the rebel captured a team of British Special Forces and a diplomat tasked contacting the rebel in Benghazi and detained them for 4 days. According to report, the rebels were very angry at that time. But why are you angry at someone who sees you are in trouble and voluntarily risk their lives to come to battle field only for asking Can I help you? What can I do for you? It is unbelievable! The only answer is that they saw the West as enemy and crusaders; they are the same Arab men that have been fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------
Similar scenarios have happened in Bosnia. Until now Bosnia Muslins still blame the West for not doing enough to protect them during the war, despite the fact that, due to supporting them against Serbia, the West lost its most prestigious profit from winning the Cold War i.e. the Russia ally. Afterward Russia began to distance itself from the U.S. and to ally with China.
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, time is now for China to have plenty of choices in Libya; both sides need China diplomatically, economically, and perhaps militarily. While keeping its relation with Libyan government, China has no trouble in embracing and be embraced by the rebel side. Only from April 7 to June 21 there were at least four oil cargo shipments from Libyan rebel side bounded to China. (But no cargo from the Gaddafi side.)
---------------------------------------------------------
Its not surprising; just take a look at whos got the biggest mineral, oil and reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can predict what will happy in Post Libya War. No matter which side wins or loses, China will always be the economic winner and diplomatic non-loser. And no doubt American tax payers money will end up in China no matter which side we aid during post-war reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now go back to my question, whats wrong with this war? Why our European allies were so eager to resort to military action against Gaddafi even after the British commando suffered a diplomatic humiliation from the rebel?
---------------------------------------------------------
My answer is, it was the result of long time deep-seated resentment in British and French people and politicians mind toward Gaddafis behavior and personality during the last four decades. It was like a long dormant volcano suddenly erupted. They prioritized emotion over reason!
---------------------------------------------------------
Somehow, if European reaction is still predictable and understandable; since, after all, they have many interests in Libya geologically and economically. Then how about America, which Gaddafi had hoped to support him? Unfortunately, when Europeans are in irrational mode, we have a boy President and more emotional female Secretary, both of whom lack of intelligent insight on global perspective and put themselves short time popularity over long time national interest. With this leadership, you know what the result would be!
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
(Aug. 1, 2011, official reasoning on this war)
---------------------------------------------------------
Having impressed everyone with quick and decisive reactions on Egypt and Libya, Obama administration has, until now, neither explicitly called for Assad to step down nor considered calling back ambassador from Damascus, let alone military action. Why?
---------------------------------------------------------
A recent headlined article on Fox news titled <Obama Administration Urged to Rethink Syria Strategy amid Bloodshed> tells the reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
---Unlike in Libya, where the U.S. and its allies were able to attack an isolated country with the blessing of other Arab nations, Syria is much more interconnected to the Middle East. An attack on Syria could upend the region David Schenker, the director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Syria is also able to "blackmail" other countries into leaving it alone. The government's support of Hezbollah and ties to other extremist elements means the regime could wreak havoc in the surrounding nations if threatened, he said As for why the administration can't respond to Assad's violence with the force the U.S. and its allies employed in Libya, State Department spokesman Mark Toner cited a couple reasons. He said there was an immediate threat in Libya and suggested the international consensus against Syria is not as strong now as it was with Libya.
----------------------------------------------------
Here come two more questions:
----------------------------------------------------
--1.What was the immediate threat in Libya posed by Gaddafis government?
-----(a.) Gates already said it is no threat to the U.S.; and several months bombing with zero NATO casualty has at least proven it no threat to the West militarily.
-----(b.) Was it a threat to democracy? Maybe, it depends on whether the rebel truly wants democracy, but no one can prove it at this stage. (Cuban, Chinese, and Iranian Revolutions had all been in the name of democracy.)
-----(c.) Nevertheless, Gaddafi was sure a threat to Benghazi; because government and armed rebel are always mutual threats to each other.
---------(i.)However, Assad has, too, been threatening the residents of the city of Hama, Syria, for months and killing its people every day. Until now, the Syrian opposition has not taken arms; the Syrian demonstrators were pure civilians gunned down by well-armed government forces.
---------(ii.)On contrast, in Libya, it was well-armed rebels versus poor armed Libyan army in early stage of the uprising; the rebels had believed that they could easily defeat the Libyan army and overthrow Libyan government very soon. That was why they had detained British diplomats and expelled them; they had seen the West as enemy. Only later when they were going to be defeated did they use the Wests forces.
------------------------------------------------------
--2.What kind of international consensus is concerning our politicians and diplomats?
-----(a.) I have the feeling that, when they say international consensus, they often mean Americas enemies consensus. They mean China, Iran, some Islamic countries and organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslin Brotherhoods consensus. They do not mean countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippine, Israel, Australia or New Zealand, etc., which are too friendly with America for their opinions to be counted.
-----(b.) In our diplomats minds, the only practicable international consensus may be the U.N. resolutions, which depend heavily on the cooperation of an anti-American countries group, headed by China, to succeed. Since China who would veto or threaten to veto any Security Council resolutions (like those of Syria) that hurt Americas enemies and be most happy to pass any ones (like the Libya sanctions) that not in Americas interests.
-----(c.) So for long time U.S. military has been just a useful tool exploited by China and some Muslin countries to attack the traitor like Gaddafi, but not allowed to protect Taiwan, Israel and other U.S. friends, and certainly never allowed to attack Sudan, Iran and Syria or any countries that are currently anti-America enough.
----------------------------------------------------
I have been arguing with those NATO action supporters for quite a long time.
Now lets try a different approach, applying a little logic, asking three questions about the origin of this war:
----------------------------------------------------
-- (1). Does the rebel have choice?
-----The answer is no. From the beginning of the uprising, they either overthrow the government, or cracked down by it; and without Western military intervention, they would have zero chance to win.
-- (2). Does Gaddafi have choice?
-----The answer is no either. The large-scale social reforms that the protesters first demanded would take years to achieve and the protesters definitely had no patience to wait; and the immediately followed violence mixed with separatists and Al Qaeda militants left him no choice.
-- (3). Does NATO have choice?
-----The answer is yes, of course! and Plenty of choices! all of which were better than NATO killing Gaddafi. The U.S. had special leverage on Gaddafi personally, it should have been a golden opportunity for us to show to both sides how necessary it is for a country to have democracy in order to solve their political dispute peacefully; meanwhile we could be friends with both sides; since both sides couldnt afford to lose American support.
---------------------------------------------------------
But now, the West has little choice. We have to continue to support the rebel no matter what they will do in future. We have lost leverage!
---------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, from day one the rebel has never trusted the West. On March 3, the rebel captured a team of British Special Forces and a diplomat tasked contacting the rebel in Benghazi and detained them for 4 days. According to report, the rebels were very angry at that time. But why are you angry at someone who sees you are in trouble and voluntarily risk their lives to come to battle field only for asking Can I help you? What can I do for you? It is unbelievable! The only answer is that they saw the West as enemy and crusaders; they are the same Arab men that have been fighting us in Iraq and Afghanistan.
---------------------------------------------------------
Similar scenarios have happened in Bosnia. Until now Bosnia Muslins still blame the West for not doing enough to protect them during the war, despite the fact that, due to supporting them against Serbia, the West lost its most prestigious profit from winning the Cold War i.e. the Russia ally. Afterward Russia began to distance itself from the U.S. and to ally with China.
---------------------------------------------------------
Again, time is now for China to have plenty of choices in Libya; both sides need China diplomatically, economically, and perhaps militarily. While keeping its relation with Libyan government, China has no trouble in embracing and be embraced by the rebel side. Only from April 7 to June 21 there were at least four oil cargo shipments from Libyan rebel side bounded to China. (But no cargo from the Gaddafi side.)
---------------------------------------------------------
Its not surprising; just take a look at whos got the biggest mineral, oil and reconstruction contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can predict what will happy in Post Libya War. No matter which side wins or loses, China will always be the economic winner and diplomatic non-loser. And no doubt American tax payers money will end up in China no matter which side we aid during post-war reconstruction.
---------------------------------------------------------
Now go back to my question, whats wrong with this war? Why our European allies were so eager to resort to military action against Gaddafi even after the British commando suffered a diplomatic humiliation from the rebel?
---------------------------------------------------------
My answer is, it was the result of long time deep-seated resentment in British and French people and politicians mind toward Gaddafis behavior and personality during the last four decades. It was like a long dormant volcano suddenly erupted. They prioritized emotion over reason!
---------------------------------------------------------
Somehow, if European reaction is still predictable and understandable; since, after all, they have many interests in Libya geologically and economically. Then how about America, which Gaddafi had hoped to support him? Unfortunately, when Europeans are in irrational mode, we have a boy President and more emotional female Secretary, both of whom lack of intelligent insight on global perspective and put themselves short time popularity over long time national interest. With this leadership, you know what the result would be!
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
(Aug. 1, 2011, official reasoning on this war)
---------------------------------------------------------
Having impressed everyone with quick and decisive reactions on Egypt and Libya, Obama administration has, until now, neither explicitly called for Assad to step down nor considered calling back ambassador from Damascus, let alone military action. Why?
---------------------------------------------------------
A recent headlined article on Fox news titled <Obama Administration Urged to Rethink Syria Strategy amid Bloodshed> tells the reason.
---------------------------------------------------------
---Unlike in Libya, where the U.S. and its allies were able to attack an isolated country with the blessing of other Arab nations, Syria is much more interconnected to the Middle East. An attack on Syria could upend the region David Schenker, the director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Syria is also able to "blackmail" other countries into leaving it alone. The government's support of Hezbollah and ties to other extremist elements means the regime could wreak havoc in the surrounding nations if threatened, he said As for why the administration can't respond to Assad's violence with the force the U.S. and its allies employed in Libya, State Department spokesman Mark Toner cited a couple reasons. He said there was an immediate threat in Libya and suggested the international consensus against Syria is not as strong now as it was with Libya.
----------------------------------------------------
Here come two more questions:
----------------------------------------------------
--1.What was the immediate threat in Libya posed by Gaddafis government?
-----(a.) Gates already said it is no threat to the U.S.; and several months bombing with zero NATO casualty has at least proven it no threat to the West militarily.
-----(b.) Was it a threat to democracy? Maybe, it depends on whether the rebel truly wants democracy, but no one can prove it at this stage. (Cuban, Chinese, and Iranian Revolutions had all been in the name of democracy.)
-----(c.) Nevertheless, Gaddafi was sure a threat to Benghazi; because government and armed rebel are always mutual threats to each other.
---------(i.)However, Assad has, too, been threatening the residents of the city of Hama, Syria, for months and killing its people every day. Until now, the Syrian opposition has not taken arms; the Syrian demonstrators were pure civilians gunned down by well-armed government forces.
---------(ii.)On contrast, in Libya, it was well-armed rebels versus poor armed Libyan army in early stage of the uprising; the rebels had believed that they could easily defeat the Libyan army and overthrow Libyan government very soon. That was why they had detained British diplomats and expelled them; they had seen the West as enemy. Only later when they were going to be defeated did they use the Wests forces.
------------------------------------------------------
--2.What kind of international consensus is concerning our politicians and diplomats?
-----(a.) I have the feeling that, when they say international consensus, they often mean Americas enemies consensus. They mean China, Iran, some Islamic countries and organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah and Muslin Brotherhoods consensus. They do not mean countries like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Philippine, Israel, Australia or New Zealand, etc., which are too friendly with America for their opinions to be counted.
-----(b.) In our diplomats minds, the only practicable international consensus may be the U.N. resolutions, which depend heavily on the cooperation of an anti-American countries group, headed by China, to succeed. Since China who would veto or threaten to veto any Security Council resolutions (like those of Syria) that hurt Americas enemies and be most happy to pass any ones (like the Libya sanctions) that not in Americas interests.
-----(c.) So for long time U.S. military has been just a useful tool exploited by China and some Muslin countries to attack the traitor like Gaddafi, but not allowed to protect Taiwan, Israel and other U.S. friends, and certainly never allowed to attack Sudan, Iran and Syria or any countries that are currently anti-America enough.
