Syria is the next Libya, or so we are told by the mindless pundits. But while these same talking heads fail to report on the carnage and aftermath of the American led regime change in Libya, they also prove their remarkable ignorance by not acknowledging Russia and China’s much cozier relations with Syria.
Diana Johnstone of Counterpunch has a wonderful analysis of the possible implications of humanitarian intervention–aka regime change–in Syria:
What if pollsters put this question to citizens of the United States and the European Union :
“Which is more important, ensuring disgruntled Islamists freedom to overthrow the secular regime in Syria, or avoiding World War Three?”
I’ll bet that there might be a majority for avoiding World War III.
But of course, the question is never framed like that.
That would be a “realistic” question, and we Westerners from the heights of our moral superiority have no time for vulgar “realism” in foreign policy (except the eccentric Ron Paul, crying out in the wilderness of Republican primaries).
Because, in the minds of our political ruling class, the United States has the power to “make reality”, we need pay no attention to the remnants of whatever reality we didn’t invent ourselves.