Why does the West intervene in Iraq, but not in Syria?

Such was the question from a Facebook friend yesterday, to which I replied:

I assume we are talking about the latest air strikes here. “The West” is about 50 countries. They haven’t intervened militarily in Iraq. The USA has. NATO hasn’t. The EU hasn’t. The UN hasn’t. The UK is just helping with food drops, but it does that in Syria also. The UK has poured a great deal of aid into Syria.

So the question isn’t for “the West”, it is for Barack Obama and perhaps also for George W Bush and his psychiatrist, as Dubya started the whole sordid mess and created a sort of US obligation in Iraq. There are also clearer targets in Iraq, whereas Syria is a total mess in military terms. It is one thing supporting a sovereign government, as in Iraq. It would be an entirely different matter to intervene militarily in Syria where we would be opposing the sovereign government in favour of a very complex and often dodgy collection of rebel groups.

We intervened in such a way in Libya against a sovereign government and in favour of rebel groups, and look where that got us – the country is now on the verge of total breakdown.

I think it is counter-productive most if the time to intervene militarily in the Middle East. It probably just delays things reaching a natural equilibrium.

But, bear in mind that there are various forms of military untervention, including peace-keeping and peace-making, all of which can be justified in certain circumstances.

Advertisements

One thought on “Why does the West intervene in Iraq, but not in Syria?

  1. “…as Dubya started the whole sordid mess and created a sort of US obligation in Iraq.”

    Dubya did not create the state of Iraq, and the colonial creators of the state (on strange borders) did not invent tribal/religious hatred. Haters perpetuate hatred.

    “It is one thing supporting a sovereign government, as in Iraq.”

    But it isn’t. The actions of UK and other bodies are about feeding people. The USA has bombed troops associated with ISIS who wish to run Iraq; the bombing might be interpreted as supportive of Kurdish forces who, by definition, wish to run Kurdistan rather than Iraq.

    “It would be an entirely different matter to intervene militarily in Syria where we would be opposing the sovereign government in favour of a very complex and often dodgy collection of rebel groups.”

    Today that is true. Intervention might have worked differently when opposition to the government comprised secular uprisings against Assad. He who hesitates is lost.

    “We intervened in such a way in Libya against a sovereign government and in favour of rebel groups, and look where that got us – the country is now on the verge of total breakdown.”

    For 40 years, a megalomaniac ran a country, a boat trip from civilised Europe, as his fiefdom. Libya has always been a rich country and its people deserve to have more of its wealth. Failure to deliver a Marshall Plan in Libya escapes my comprehension.

    “It probably just delays things reaching a natural equilibrium.”

    What is the natural equilibrium? ISIS? Megalomania?

    “But, bear in mind that there are various forms of military untervention, including peace-keeping and peace-making, all of which can be justified in certain circumstances.”

    I hope so too. Consider also that “peace-keeping” requires shooting people who do not keep the peace.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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