Notebook, 23 May 2011: Consequences . . .

Well. I hate love to say I told you so, but yes, this is what I predicted over a month ago.

Today, Colum Lynch reports on the UN Security Council’s attitude toward Syria, and they aren’t in the mood to listen to the interventionist bloc at the moment:

The current dispute over Syria “is the hang over from Libya,” one council diplomat told Turtle Bay. “China and Russia feel a bit betrayed because the coalition went further than what was in the resolution. It diminished the possibility of replicating the Libya model in Yemen and Syria,” where Russia and China have blocked action.

(Emphasis mine)

Not that I’m calling for another bombing campaign, I’m most definitely not, but this is real fallout for overreaching in Libya. The mission approved by the Security Council was civilian protection, as established by international norm. Regime change was unilateral.

Speaking of predictions, another one coming from me over two years ago:

“. . . unilateral strikes by the US into Waziristan should cease immediately, and this perception:

“One of the greatest weaknesses in the current bilateral partnership is that most Pakistanis view the United States as a fickle ally, likely to drag Pakistan into its post-9/11 war on terror and then to walk away as soon as Washington’s own interests are served.”
Policy Options Paper—Pakistan [Council on Foreign Relations, Daniel Markey, December 2007]

must be conclusively disproved through a long term commitment to remaining constructively engaged with Pakistan. Instead of insisting the Pakistani army move into the FATA, we might be better off helping them to interdict arms shipments.

Of course, it has been noted since that the spadework for the destructive consequences of Obama’s raid on OBL’s compound was years of sovereign abuse (in the popular mind—wikileaks has since revealed that Predator strikes took place with Islamabad’s blessing) of Pakistan by the United States.

These things are predictable, so why do those in Washington (especially in congress) insist on such destructive, counterproductive behaviors?

If I can figure this stuff out, it is amply demonstrated that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. But then, we’re talking about congress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s