America is still dragging its feet in dealing with the Syrian crisis. The American Secretary of State is speaking in riddles about an idea proposed at the beginning of the revolution for establishing "safe haven zones" under cover of the Security Council. However, Clinton threw the burden of establishing such zones on the shoulders of the rebels themselves, saying it depends on the ability of the rebels to hold the regions they liberate from the Assad's regime, without providing any promises for helping them in this respect outside the United Nations.
Clinton's announcement doesn't match with the great developments of the Syrian opposition, who succeeded in killing some of the senior regime's symbols, threatened the capital Damascus and opened a new front in Aleppo.
It doesn't also fit the expansion of the military and diplomatic defections, because it is not suitable to supply the rebels with communication devices, while Assad's army receives equipment, advisors and even fighters and money from Russia and Iran.
The assumption that the opposition with their current modest armament would succeed in liberating wide areas and keep them for a long time does not fit with reality, because the regular army adopts the shifting war method to prevent the rebels from holding any area for a long period.
The regime directs it to the areas with dense rebel forces so as to disperse and prevent them from establishing a foothold. That is why the fighting calms down in one town to intensify in another in a consecutive way.
It is boring to repeat the reasons making the Americans to take a hesitant position including the presidential elections, in fear of the arrival of extremists to power in Damascus, the possibility of their possession to chemical weapons as well as the lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq.
The last point is the main excuse in the procrastination and fear of Washington from involvement in a new war in light of a deteriorating economic situation. It prefers the present cautious dealing with the Middle East crises, especially given that the Iraqi occupation had only resulted in strengthening the Iranian influence in this country, leave alone the results expected in a country more complicate like Syria.
Washington attributes its reluctance to the adamant Russian position at the UN Security Council, and its desire not to «cut the cord» with Moscow. But, in the Libyan experience is an example for helping the Syrian people without direct involvement.
It is true the NATO intervention in Libya came after the Security Council resolution, but it is also true the intervention didn't need a resolution as the eastern parts of the country were threatened with a terrible massacre at the hands of the Gadafi forces moving towards it. Any intervention from any country for preventing this possibility would have found international understanding without overt agreement.
The NATO forces, for the most part American, especially the air force and missiles, succeeded in abrogating the Libyan regime through air raids and strikes, without sending a single soldier to Libyan soil. So why cannot this "distant" intervention be repeated in the Syrian case?
The continuation of the current American evaluation to the situation in Syria means the "hit and run" battles will continue for a long time; because of the inability of any party to settle down the battle for his advantage. This requires the Arabs not depend on the Americans and the initiative. They should move outside the traditional framework so as to save the Syrian people.