Moammar Gadhafi Dead

Malor wrote:

Oh, sure -- they could be just playing to the cheap seats back home, perhaps. But the fact that they've blocked any resolutions about Syria suggests that it's not just noise, that they're representing their actual position, and that getting any further resolutions through the Security Council that involve military action may be impossible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_N...

Gee, what a surprise.

Aha -- yeah, that could also do it. We'll have to see if their claims to be angry about the West exceeding their stated mandate is real, or cover for stopping intervention that interferes with their oil revenues.

Syria and Libya are, also, completely different cases. There doesn't appear to be a consensus on how to deal with Syria. There wouldn't exactly be folks beating down our door to cooperate with military action against them.

I'm sure we'd love to reshuffle the Syrian deck in the hopes that someone would arise that would be less friendly with the Iranians, but the odds of that are pretty long. In my analysis, at least, the chances of a positive outcome to an Assad ouster are too uncertain to pay the price of rolling the dice. In any event, the price would be a whole lot more than a billion dollars and some choice words from China and Russia. There isn't a significant opposition force and as unpopular as Assad may be, he is extremely well entrenched politically.

The state department is making noises about sanctions and the such right now largely as a diplomatic penetration test. They aren't expecting much in the way of progress, but you have to turn the knob to know of the door is open. This is pretty standard business.

Libya was getting Wes Welker for a 7th round draft pick. Syria looks like Ochocinco for two first rounders and a conditional 2nd.

In any event, the price would be a whole lot more than a billion dollars and some choice words from China and Russia.

The price for Libya is also the prevention of any further interventions, no matter how desperately they may be needed, under U.N. aegis, at least probably. That's pretty steep.

Malor wrote:
In any event, the price would be a whole lot more than a billion dollars and some choice words from China and Russia.

The price for Libya is also the prevention of any further interventions, no matter how desperately they may be needed, under U.N. aegis, at least probably. That's pretty steep.

Hardly.

The Chinese and Russians are better at being Realists than we are. If it suits their interests to play ball with an intervention, they'll go along with it just like they did during the first Gulf War. If it doesn't suit their interests, they weren't going to go along with it anyway.

It's refreshing to see an American president play the game like it is actually meant to be played.

Malor wrote:

Aha -- yeah, that could also do it. We'll have to see if their claims to be angry about the West exceeding their stated mandate is real, or cover for stopping intervention that interferes with their oil revenues.

Check out the history of China's shenanigans in Africa for the last 40+ years and it'll become very clear very quickly.