helping other nations liberate themselves is always an opportunity, but Obama is not a liberator

Submitted by Cyrus (United States), Jun 14, 2012 at 19:14

Helping other nations liberate themselves is always a good cause and opportunity for the leader of the free world, however, the Obama administration does not have the moral commitment to impose (or even advocate) a system of government based on American values, the way America imposed its values on the post-WWII Japan and Germany that transformed 2 of the most hostile & totalitarian nations into natural allies, stable democracies and world leading economies.

I think the US should delay the collapse of Assad, but shortly after the inevitable collapse aid the opposition and take credit for the liberation. I also it would be a great opportunity for Israel to help slowly shift the Arab public opinion if it can act as a liberating force at some point, specially the Kurdish members of the FSA would easily get along with Israel.

I agree, the longer Assad stays in power, the more the Muslim world realize the real oppressors of the Muslims,: their own dictators, but also the longer a secular dictator survives, the more the opposition turn to Islamic radicalism, we should learn from the post Soviet-Afghanistan. The radical forces helped push the Soviets out of the country and once the Soviets were gone, the west fully abandoned them leaving the power vacuum that left the country in decades of civil war until the AQ's proxy the Taliban, backed by Pakistan and Arab Wahhabis took over and the consequence of that was 9/11 and a never ending war. Had the 1979 Iran revolution prevented if Jimmy Carter didn't intentionally facilitate the Khomeinist take over, the Soviets wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan (the Shah had established a very smart strategic relations with the Soviets and other neighbors that kept them off borders and at the same time IRan under the Shah was Afghanistan's big brother and the Afghans were inspired by the westernized & secular Iran) post-Shah Iran encouraged the Soviets to open a path toward the Persian Gulf through Afghanistan, to stop the Soviets there Carter quietly allowed Islamist Pakistan to obtain nuclear weapons, one of the main reasons US can not do much about rise and sponsor of terrorism in Pakistan today.

So history can repeat itself, however since Syria has a long history of secularism, multi-culturalism and religious tolerance among both the Sunnies and Shiite civilians, I think the post-Assad Syria would be better than the post-Mubarak Egypt. I am also against uprooting Assad forces, the mistake made in the post-Saddam Iraq, they are already defecting and instead the west should come up with a policy of advocating a multi-ethnic system in the post-Assad Syria, a government formed by cooperation and coordination between the secular Alawites and the Sunnies, Kurds and Christians and a non-Sharia constitution, judicial and political system that protect individual rights and equality for all citizens regardless of religious or ethnic background, something similar to the Turkish model, however I disapprove the Turks anti-Kurdish policies and also the slight shift to Islamism (the Turkish system and constitution is still secular and I don't think it would ever become an Islamist state and also think it's much smarted if a westernized US ally Turkey plays the leadership role of the Sunnies and ME states instead of Saudis or Iran).

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".