China and the west.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2012/02/20/china-on-the-geopolitics-of-syria-crisis/
 I really liked this article because it gets straight to the point. its a bit old considering it was published in late February so a lot has happened since. This article gives a better understanding on why the nations of the west and the east are doing what they are in Syria. We spoke about this in class; on how China sees the west (America) as a nation trying to police the world and how they are trying to prevent the U.S. from controlling more nations in the middle East. Please let me know if I am wrong about anything i say because I don't fully understand what goes on in the middle east,

"War is a racket, it always has been"

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30295

I found this article a bit tough to read. I felt like there was a lot going on in this article. The main thing i got out of this article is how different nations are intervening. Most of the countries are getting involved for oil. I like how the writer discussed how Iran would be affected if the Syria domino would fall on them. After reading the article all that kept going through my mind is Oil Oil Oil and more Oil. And the outcome of this resource is war.

comparison of Libya and Syria

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/28/syria-libya-how-they-compare

This article is over a year old, but I found it interesting because it has a simple break down to why it is more beneficial to intervene in Libya and not Syria. Also it kind of explains to why these two nations have become so infamous. it doesn't go into much detail, but the readers can get an idea of what was going on in these two nations at the time. 

Russia In Relation To Libya/ Arab Spring

Article- http://www.mei.edu/content/russia-and-arab-spring

Russia and the Arab Spring discusses Russia’s response to each of the Arab Spring risings spurring revolutions across the Middle East (Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria), how it “has sought to protect its interests in the region” and it’s relations with the West.

In regards to Libya’s uprising in particular, Medvedev stated that, ‘“foreign elements’ were fermenting these uprisings and that their ultimate intention was to bring about political change to Russia”. What caught my attention is that to the contrary Russia, although having strong interest in Syria (whose ally is Iran), is still very concerned with preserving favorable relations with American, the West and the Arab League, according to this article.

Russia is playing whichever side of the fence provides the most favorable opportunity- one minute aligning itself with the west and another moment, with Assad for Syria and Iran- and I think that instead of the standstills that continue take place on decisive actions against regimes in Syria, Libya, and other Arab Countries, the outside countries and organizations should settle on solution of what to do or just stay out of the conflict. I do understand keeping a low profile, but waiting for someone to act isn’t a proper solution. If those countries truly wanted to help the situation regarding the uprising in the Middle East, they would stop thinking principally of their own interest.

Libya: Cost of U.S. Participation

Article- http://www.mei.edu/content/libya-costly-victory

The United States was clearly not a hero in this article, having again made the offense of overreaching in intervention into foreign affairs. In this occasion, the Arab League, wanted to protect Libyan civilians, by requesting NATO for a “no-fly” zone over Libya, but instead “NATO starting its bombing of Qadhafi forces”, which they did not ask for. The nations comprising the Arab League had to agree in order to seek this assistance, and their agreement was unprecedented. However, the United States used this request to “justify a policy of regime change” through military action, under the guise of having approval from the U.N Security Council and not Congress. According to the author, Bannerman, not only did the United States provide assistance that was undesired, but also damaged future cooperation amongst the Arab League in the future and undermined U.S. democracy, by setting an regrettable precedent.

Although the author, makes a great reiteration for why the United States should not overstate itself in foreign affairs, which I wholeheartedly agree with especially after reading about the damage done by that course of action, I don’t agree with the idea that “victory” could even be in the title. I believe that Libya, the country whom should be the principal decision maker in this problem, should have had the first say in deciding course of action taken. The damage the U.S. has created will take some time to fix. This just makes me think of Orientalism and how civilized West wants to fix the uncivilized East. In my opinion, this article points out again that we should just let the host country try to handle their own internal issues before we  try to control and dictate solutions (that make things worse). As the title of Jay’s article stated (in relation to this example)- Libya: It’s not our Fight.

Syria's Relationship with Neighboring Countries

Article: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00396338.2012.672699

This article grabbed my attention on the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ website.  

Syria and its Neighbors breaks down Syria’s relationship to its other neighboring Arab countries- Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel- and outlines their positions as the revolution within Syria unfolds. The reoccurring theme in this piece is that, in contrast to the air of “resilience and surprising longevity of the Bashar al-Assad regime” that its neighboring countries have become accustomed to over time, Syria presently finds itself in a vulnerable position, “exposed to external predatory ambitions, sectarian-fuelled intervention and attempts to change its strategic orientation” due to the budding revolution happening within its borders, and developing course toward civil war (Hokayem 7). 

What I found most interesting is the author’s highlighting of Turkey’s position, as an important player in relation to Syria, because I hadn’t thought of its geographical and political influence in the Middle East. Turkey has already taken action toward international diplomacy to get Assad to cooperate (by imposing sanctions, which is not something the United States has the sole power to do, and accepting Syrian refugees). Apparently Turkey’s location is advantageous in regards to military action, which would be essential if Gulf States were to take to arming and supporting Syrian opposition (10). I am all for peaceful solutions, but geographically this maneuver does make sense, especially considering Turkey’s proximity and consequential involvement in the situation in Syria. This is just one to the possibilities given, and just for Turkey.

The events occurring in Syria, which in itself is a product of the Arab Spring, not only effects its own government. All neighboring countries have potential to benefit and/ or withstand injury from the Syrian governmental regime’s weakened state. Yet, Syria has the potential to survive the conflict. I agree with the author in that the outcome will depend on the maneuvers made by its neighbors.

I like that this article admitted the Syrian Assad regime as being vulnerable instead of being portrayed under its usual administration of control and order. I also like that it also doesn't talk about what the U.S. has to lose or gain for a change, but analyzes other Middle Eastern countries and their part in resolving this issue.

Syria or Libya

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-us-intervene-in-syria-with-military-action/case-for-intervention-in-syria-stronger-than-in-libya


This article makes a case that Syria is in stronger need of military intervention than Libya. The author explains how Syria is on the brink of a civil war, and although the Obama administration has preached and talked how Assad's days are numbered..... But we have been all bark and no bite. Despite Syria's cries for help, we have not demonstrated any direct assistance to their likings. America is labeled as sitting on the sideline not acknowledging the Syrian people seeking their freedom.

Once again, an American author makes a comparison that is influenced by "weapons of Mass destruction." He uses Syrias ties with Iran and terroristic activities as a case to further increase our awarness to intervene. But what this all boils down to is politics and in my opinion; oil.