without commenting on what coll says about the syrian revolution, what struck me in this piece is:
“Any foreign power hoping to promote peace, stability, and democratic inclusion in the Middle East must account for the Israeli-Palestinian divide, the Sunni-Shia divide, the Muslim-Christian divide, widespread anti-Semitism, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the security of oil supplies pumped by weak regimes, Al Qaeda and related radicals, tribalism, corruption, and a picturesque lineup of despots.”
— smacks of arrogant, one-sided imperial goals. how can we talk of anti-semitism w/o talking of islamophobia (as in ethnic cleansing and supporting oppressive dictatorships for the sake of “stability”)? why mention iran’s nuclear ambitions w/o talking about israel’s existing nuclear arsenal? what does it mean for us to secure someone else’s oil? so there r sunni-shia issues and muslim-christian issues, but no jewish-muslim problems? it’s kind of central to the middle east’s core conflict no? and what’s better than tribalism – western style capitalism which exploits the majority for the sake of a few? and that’s not corruption? al qaeda is non-state terrorism and therefore a concern, but what about widespread state terrorism in the middle east – which is carried out on a much more massive scale and with much better military equipment, resulting in many more civilian deaths? why is that palatable?
coll ends the article with a call for investigating assad at the intl criminal court. he’s enthused that the ICC wants to arrest qaddafi for crimes against humanity. hey, guess who else could qualify for a similar warrant? several names come to mind.