Unfortunately Not Surprised

I've been watching the developing situations in the Middle East and Africa and its hard to be supportive of the government and NATO's actions in Libya.  Not because the Libyan rebels didn't need our help or that Moammar Gadhafi shouldn't have been stopped and be held accountable for the killing of civilians, but the open and blatant hypocrisy of the West in the face of widespread violence across the region.  Where were we when protesters were being killed in Yemen or Bahrain?  Why hasn't the West stepped in and stopped the mass killings in the Ivory Coast, where over 800 people were killed last week?  How can we support the revolutions over Egypt and Libya, but not the protesters in Syria, Bahrain, and Yemen?

Really, I guess its obvious why we support one and not the other.  The West only intervenes when it is in their interests to do so, but under the guise of protecting civilians and preventing or ending humanitarian disasters.  Lets be real,  Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen have all had similar violence as Libya, but the difference is it is in the West's interests to get rid of Gadhafi.  Granted, he makes it an easy sell for them by acting like a madman, but it doesn't change the principle of it.  In Bahrain, our Saudi Arabian allies fear that Bahrain's Sunni Royal Family will be ousted and Saudi will lose its influence over Bahrain.  If America's silence on the matter wasn't enough, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sending troops into Bahrain to help control the protests should be.  Not only was there civilian's being killed, but our allies are exerting military force over the potential revolution.  Its similarly obvious as to why  America hasn't supported the Yemeni protesters, we need the Salah regime in power to continue fighting the Yemeni Al-Qaeda.  Our security is a good reason to support a regime, however its hard to justify picking and choosing when we're going to support the will of the people vs the will of the regime.

The most curious case is in the Ivory Coast, though, where widespread violence has torn the country apart ever since the political standoff started 4 months ago, with Gbagbo refusing to leave office.  The figures very from 330 to over 1000 killed in a single town last week.  Thats on top of the 500 already killed, according to the United Nations.  Gbagbo's rival Ouattara, the one who pretty much everyone recognizes as the winner of the election, has claimed to find mass graves, crediting them to Gbagbo's forces.  How on Earth can we spend billions and risk more political backlash by intervening in Libya and not do a single thing about the massive violence in the Ivory Coast?

I have no doubt that parts of Europe getting nearly 80% of their oil from Libya played a big part in that decision.  For a long time, I had faith in America, that we weren't really fighting wars in the Middle East to control oil reserves.  I mean I wasn't nieve enough to believe that oil wasn't the driving motivator behind our foreign policy in the Middle East; we've turned a blind eye to most of what happens there, so long as we get our oil.  I didn't believe, or just didn't want to believe, that we went into Iraq just for the oil, though.  I didn't think we needed a real justification to go in and take out Saddam, he was enough of a reason himself, but I thought that we genuinely believed there were WMD's.  I still do, to some extent.  Not so much because it was the official reasoning behind the war, but because the intelligence, the war, and the reconstruction were all handled so piss poorly that it would make completely logical sense to believe that we thought that.  Libya, on the other hand, is far more obviously about oil, regional influence, and I think its about finally being able to get Gadhafi on the Lockerbie bombings.  Its not like we've ever been fond of the guy, we only dealt with him recently because he gave up his nuclear weapons program.  Before then we liked him about as much as we do now, if not even less.

I'm also not stupid enough to think that we could or should be intervening in all of the rebellions going on right now.  Not only would it be extremely difficult, but we would be over stretching our military and our wallets.  Even if that weren't the case, we're already violating Libya's state sovereignty, how would it look to the world if we were to go and intervene in every other countries affairs?  Yes, I would like to see American interests be secured, but positive domestic and global public opinion is also in America's interest, and one that is far from being realized.  Hell, I'll go all the way and admit that although nine people have been killed in Syrian protests recently, we shouldn't intervene there.  If we did, it would only be a matter of time before we found ourselves in a much larger war, not only with Syria but with their close ally Iran.  Speaking of Iran, I find it funny how similar our two government stances on the rebellions are. Iran publicly supported the protests in Egypt, while at the same time oppressing its own rebellion.  America goes in to protect the protesters in another country while the government in Wisconsin is running from our own protests, and we show the same two faced reaction by doing nothing in the Ivory Coast and supporting the regimes of Bahrain and Yemen in their protests.  I really don't like the idea of having similar principles as Iran.  Fortunately, our government runs from protests instead of squashes them, so I guess we're not the same after all.  Regardless, I think it would be in America and the West's best interests to solidify its position and become more consistent in their foreign policy.  If I am ranting about it, I can only imagine how our enemies and critiques feel.

-Jon