Leading from Behind

In Libya our famous policy was to lead from behind, i.e., let France and NATO take the lead and will just provide the logistics, some air power, command and control, and lots of ammunition.  Our rationale for getting involved at all was that if we didn't, Gaddafi would surely slaughter thousands of innocent Libyans. 

Now that Assad has already slaughtered nearly 10,000 innocent people in Syria, I wonder why we are so reluctant to get involved at all.  We seem to be biting our nails wondering whether or not we should send arms and humanitarian aid.   We didn't seem to have that hesitation with Libya.  What is different?

Well, for starters, the Europeans, who really didn't have much ammunition and had to rely on the US for basic material and logistic support, are now worrying about their collapsing economies.  It seems that while we were spending our tax dollars on protecting them during the Cold War, they were busy spending their tax dollars on building cradle-to-grave social welfare states.  They raised a generation of spoiled citizens who just want to play and not work as little as possible.  Now the piper has come to town and is demanding to be paid. 

So the Europeans are not much help here.

Second, it is now election season in the US.  Getting involved in another military conflict is something I am sure Obama's handlers are advising him against.  He's just biting his nails hoping that the Iranian thing doesn't blow up before the election.  And getting involved in Syria could cause the Iranian thing to blow up.

Victor Davis Hanson has a few thoughts on the matter.  He advises that maybe we shouldn't get involved in the Middle East because we don't know what the end game is.  The Syrian opposition hates us for not giving them arms.  Will they love us more after we do?  As Hanson says:

"After lots of interventions, we have learned one thing about loud Arab reformers, especially those who were educated at Western universities: They damn us for supporting their dictators; they damn us for removing them; they damn us for interfering in their affairs when we help promote democracy; and they damn us as callous when we just let them be.

These cautionary tales do not necessarily mean that we should not help the Syrian dissidents, only that we must ask ourselves who exactly are these guys, how much will it cost to see them win, and when it is over will our new friends rule any more humanely and competently than the monsters that we remove?"