The Only Real Difference Between Libya and Syria, A Look Back

Many people have given numerous long and twisted explanations on the major differences between the revolt in Libya and the one in Syria. In the end, the main point usually revolves around blaming the United States, Europe, the European Union, and/or NATO. The blame is placed on the West because the West has supported regime change, or at least those actively seeking regime change, in Syria with bombs and tactical support while they have only supported the Syrian people with sanctions against Assad and his henchmen and a lot, and I mean a real excess king of a lot, of high sounding words praising the sacrifices the Syrian people are suffering in their protests to remove Assad from power. So, while the West is bombing Gaddafi and his troops and infrastructure, the West is lauding and praising and talking a good game against Assad while the Syrian people die in the hundreds. So, thus far the basic reason given for the difference in how the World, meaning the United states and the West as nobody else is ever expected to do anything about these matters, is that the West has used active support in Libya and passive, moral support in Syria. Well, no duh. That is the question simply rephrased, not an answer.

So, what is the difference between Libya and Syria? The difference is guns. The Libyans who decided their tyrannical leader had to go grabbed guns and took to the streets and started shooting anybody who represented the government. The West is very sensitive to any situation where the people take to the streets and start to shoot government personnel. This may have to do with the fact that the main country behind the West taking an active role in anything, that would be the United states for those in doubt, has a citizenship that may not have better arms than the government, but they have more guns relatively spread throughout the entire country in the hands of the people. This little fact tends to make the American government really motivated to stop as quickly as possible any conflict where the people grabbed their guns and went to war with their government. More often than not, the United States will tend to support the people in the streets fighting to overthrow their usually excessively insensitive and possibly even oppressive government rather than support the government against the people. This might be due to the people in such cases often are the underdogs in such a fight, or it could be that rebel forces usually have great abilities at camouflage, until they pull up their gun, they look like normal, every-day citizens; while the government troops all wear uniforms and are easily identifiable by such.

Now, on to the obvious difference. The Syrian people decided, probably out of necessity and a lack of available firearms, that they would attempt to remove their now obviously brutal dictator through nonviolent demonstrations. They might have been thinking, “Bashar Assad is a well-educated man who studied to be an ophthalmologist, he would not be inclined towards violently suppressing our demonstrations.” Even if that was not part of their rationale, whatever their reason for initially using nonviolent means to remove Assad from power, they should have figured out their error by now. Since the Syrian people did not take to the streets with guns and start off by killing every government representative in sight and have yet to take this step, then there must not be any urgency seen to aid their peaceful protests with bombs and other violent means. The United States and the West respect the Syrians wish for a nonviolent revolt and are giving the Syrian people nonviolent support. Where this line of rationalizing may not actually be thought out as much as a reflexive reaction, we might see this more of an unconscious reactionary choice more than the plodding result of unfeeling, callous government functionaries. So, the conclusion is that if the Syrian people would like to receive a more active involvement by the rest of the World in their struggles to remove Bashar Assad, they should give serious thought to arming themselves and taking the fight to the streets with as much vigor as they can muster. This may not seem like the best available option, but it must be better than being gunned down in the streets and the World simply reacting by declaring that Assad is not a very nice man. I believe this is filed under the adage of help yourselves and perchance others will be more likely to help you.

Beyond the Cusp