Here is a smart analysis of why Qaddafi is likely to go while Syrian president Assad of Syria is not--or at least not with U.S. participation (or probably anyone else's). Arron David Miller in FP."If you're a bit confused about U.S. President Barack Obama's passivity in the face of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's brutal repression of domestic opposition, don't be. Syria isn't Libya. The Assad regime is just too consequential to risk undermining."Although the fall of the House of Assad might actually benefit U.S. interests, the president isn't going to encourage it. For realists in the White House, Assad's demise carries more risks than opportunities."Anthony Shadid of the NYTimes seems to have been allowed into Syria, which has banned most journalists (May 13). And from May 12. This (May 9) from a Syrian government spokeswoman: "The remarks by Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Mr. Assad who often serves as an official spokeswoman, suggested that a government accustomed to adapting in the face of crises was prepared to weather international condemnation and sanctions. Her confidence came in stark contrast to appearances just two weeks ago, when the government seemed to stagger before the breadth and resilience of protests in dozens of towns and cities."This in today's Time's from Mahmoud Gebril ElWarfally, interim prime minister of the Transitional National Council of the Libyan Republic...Stephen Walt, who opposed U.S. intervention of Libya, asks: "Twilight for Qaddafi?" He thinks the answers is yes, but asks about what is to follow.And this from Michael Young a columnist for a leading Lebanese paper: "Syria fortifies Obama in his indecision," which critiques the Shadid interviews.

Margaret O’Brien Steinfels is a former editor of Commonweal. 

Also by this author
© 2024 Commonweal Magazine. All rights reserved. Design by Point Five. Site by Deck Fifty.