Strategy Page has an awesome post about why the public in Western countries have turned on their leader’s decision to intervene in Syria, because of the supposed use of Chemical weapons by the Assad regime on the opposition. Now, remember that these leaders suddenly feel compelled to act because of some hard to verify attack that killed some 300 to 1000 people, depending on the source, in a conflict where over 100,000 people have been killed through conventional weapons. My opinion of why Obama is so gung-ho about doing something in Syria is well known, and I am willing to bet, dead on too, but the reason why people in general are against any military intervention at all, even when WMDs have been used, is something that has not been properly explored. And the Strategy Page article seems to do a decent job of explaining the why. From the article:
Western leaders have been slow to accept this unpleasant news but the voters, who pay for these attacks in money and blood, have a veto power and they are exercising it. The Internet has spread the personal experience of Western troops far and wide and the mindset of Arabs in conflict areas is now widely known in the West. The continued popularity of Islamic terrorism among so many Moslems, including many living in the West, adds to this sense of disgust and distrust.
This shift in attitude has been building for over a decade. Iraq demonstrated that, as has the after-effects of the Arab Spring, where Arabs, freed from log-time dictators, voted Islamic radicals into power. That was stupid even by Arab standards and the Arab public is now trying to repair that damage. But the corruption and lack of responsible leadership and general unreliability of Arabs has put off the West, even in the face of a great humanitarian disaster in Syria. It’s not the first time this has happened. The West pulled out of Somalia in 1993 because of frustration with trying to help people who won’t make much of an effort to help themselves and were more interested in killing and stealing.
The West is learning why the Turks were so glad to be rid of their Arab subjects after the Ottoman Empire collapsed a century ago. Then there is the corruption and intense hatreds found among the Arabs. It’s a very volatile and unpredictable part of the world and always has been. For centuries, the West was shielded from this reality because the Ottoman Turks ruled most of the Arabs.
And that in a nutshell is the problem in the Middle East: corruption, clannishness, ineffective leadership, and general unreliability of both the people and their leadership simply makes any attempt to bring order and prosperity of any kind to these countries a futile effort. These people are their own worst enemy. More frightening is their belief that the Islamist somehow, because they preach it, at least in their minds, will provide the solution. Instead, what they end up with are things like Khomeini’s Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, or Brotherhood in Egypt, and even more pain and problems as the corruption now is coupled with brutal and randomized abuses of power.
The fact is that we now see that the Arabs are basically dysfunctional people. Sure we can blame colonialism and borders created by the old colonial empires for this dysfunction, like the marxist academicians that hate the West for not succumbing to the collectivist yoke have been doing, but it would all be a stupid simplification of a much uglier and bigger problem, if not, and outright lie. Nobody, including these Arabs, can function on a scale beyond the family or clan. When you consider everyone outside your clan or family to be a mark, there is no way to create the concept of a country. That’s also why these Arab states do not function without a dictator and Muhammad needed Islam to bring some order to them in the hopes that combining religion with politics would yield an answer. Never worked out well, and it only left us with a death cult.
That Strategy page article goes into some great detail about all the problems in the ME and how the Western people are finally wising up to these facts. Consequently, we are far less likely to get public support for action, even when our leaders pretend the reason they want to bomb someone is humanitarian, instead of to provide cover for their own corruption and abuses of power. We may not yet be at the point where everyone is comfortable saying that the Arabs, because of what they believe and how they deal with the world around them and other people, are their own worst enemy yet, but we are almost there. And don’t let the idiotic meme currently pushed by Obama sycophants in the LSM that the reason people are much more cautious and less inclined to support intervention in Syria, even when we are promised that they will not put boots on the ground, is because of Iraq, and particularly their rewriting of history about how Boosh lied to get us into Iraq (since everyone knew there were no WMDs), fool you. It is a giant pile of bullshit. If Iraq plays a role it is that people have wizened up after seeing that after all the sacrifices we did to rid them of their tyrant and his oppression, they went right back to business as usual and turned the place into a shithole. That’s the story there. People no longer want to waste treasure, time, and blood on people that revert to stupidity when given a new chance.
Besides, people aren’t stupid. Most of us clearly see that this attack is nothing but a diversion. An attempt to distract us from all the bad shit they are doing. And the “they” are both democrats and republicans. Leave Syria alone. Let those fuckers do their thing. If anything, arm both sides and let them wipe each other out. That’s the only win-win for those of us that have wizened up.