Tom Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times who focuses mainly on foreign affairs; he is also frequently delusional. Today, for example, Friedman has a long piece in which he explains why the Syrian civil war is really the result of a drought that hit Syria due to climate change. Friedman's narrative is crazy enough, but the editors of the Times actually published it. Are they kidding?
Let's go back in time to review what happened in Syria.
First of all, Friedman is correct that there was a drought that affected Syria. It is hard to blame global warming for the drought since there has not been any rise in global temperatures for the last 14 years, but there really was a drought that lasted for a number of years.
Three years ago, the so called Arab Spring began in Tunisia. It was not caused by the drought in Syria. Unrest spread to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and elsewhere. This was not caused by the drought in Syria. Eventually, there were some demonstrations in a few towns in Syria. People took to the streets demanding change.
Then came the real catalyst for the civil war. Bashir al Assad decided that he could not tolerate any dissent to his rule. That decision was not made due to the drought. Assad sent snipers to sit on roof tops and fire randomly into the protest marches. People in the marches were killed and wounded. What had been a movement for changing government policies became a movement for changing the government. Assad and his murderous rampage sparked intense anger among the Syrian majority. It was the killings of innocents by Assad and not a drought to caused the civil war.
For months and then years, the Syrian majority fought against the Assad forces. Again and again, Assad raised the level of violence in the hope of ending the opposition. When snipers did not suffice, he sent in battalions of police and soldiers. When that proved inadequate to quell the revolt, Assad started using tanks and artillery to bombard areas where opposition was the strongest. When that failed, Assad began using aircraft to bomb his opponents. When that failed, Assad started to use chemical weapons. The rebels, who are hopelessly out gunned, have held on and succeeded for the most part simply as a matter of will.
No, the drought in Syria (whatever its cause) is not what brought on the civil war. That war was what president Obama would call a "war of choice." The choice for war was made by Assad.
Meanwhile, Obama had it in his power to have ended the war long ago. Had America stepped in to stop Assad from slaughtering his own people 18 months ago, the war would have seen a quick end. Iran would have lost its main ally in the world. Hezbollah would have been cut off from its supply line in Iran. The al Qaeda fighters would not have been able to infiltrate the Syrian forces. It would have been one of those win-win situations. But Obama chose to treat the Syrian mess like everything else; he pushed it off until after the elections and then he ignored it.
Friedman is right about one thing: things now are terrible in Syria and they are likely to get worse. The only thing improving right now in Syria is the chance that one will be killed in the war. The prospects for Syria after the war are grim. The chance of a coherent response from the West is almost nil, particularly since no one seems to be trying to achieve anything there. But this is not due to global warming or drought or natural causes. This dance of death is continuing to the music written by Assad.
Let's go back in time to review what happened in Syria.
First of all, Friedman is correct that there was a drought that affected Syria. It is hard to blame global warming for the drought since there has not been any rise in global temperatures for the last 14 years, but there really was a drought that lasted for a number of years.
Three years ago, the so called Arab Spring began in Tunisia. It was not caused by the drought in Syria. Unrest spread to Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and elsewhere. This was not caused by the drought in Syria. Eventually, there were some demonstrations in a few towns in Syria. People took to the streets demanding change.
Then came the real catalyst for the civil war. Bashir al Assad decided that he could not tolerate any dissent to his rule. That decision was not made due to the drought. Assad sent snipers to sit on roof tops and fire randomly into the protest marches. People in the marches were killed and wounded. What had been a movement for changing government policies became a movement for changing the government. Assad and his murderous rampage sparked intense anger among the Syrian majority. It was the killings of innocents by Assad and not a drought to caused the civil war.
For months and then years, the Syrian majority fought against the Assad forces. Again and again, Assad raised the level of violence in the hope of ending the opposition. When snipers did not suffice, he sent in battalions of police and soldiers. When that proved inadequate to quell the revolt, Assad started using tanks and artillery to bombard areas where opposition was the strongest. When that failed, Assad began using aircraft to bomb his opponents. When that failed, Assad started to use chemical weapons. The rebels, who are hopelessly out gunned, have held on and succeeded for the most part simply as a matter of will.
No, the drought in Syria (whatever its cause) is not what brought on the civil war. That war was what president Obama would call a "war of choice." The choice for war was made by Assad.
Meanwhile, Obama had it in his power to have ended the war long ago. Had America stepped in to stop Assad from slaughtering his own people 18 months ago, the war would have seen a quick end. Iran would have lost its main ally in the world. Hezbollah would have been cut off from its supply line in Iran. The al Qaeda fighters would not have been able to infiltrate the Syrian forces. It would have been one of those win-win situations. But Obama chose to treat the Syrian mess like everything else; he pushed it off until after the elections and then he ignored it.
Friedman is right about one thing: things now are terrible in Syria and they are likely to get worse. The only thing improving right now in Syria is the chance that one will be killed in the war. The prospects for Syria after the war are grim. The chance of a coherent response from the West is almost nil, particularly since no one seems to be trying to achieve anything there. But this is not due to global warming or drought or natural causes. This dance of death is continuing to the music written by Assad.
No comments:
Post a Comment