> It is possible that the West (and Israel) would rather see the status
> quo than Islamist parties getting to power, but they do not want to
> say this openly as not to tarnish their "democratic" image.
Very possible. Then there's the small fact that Israelo-apartheid routinely bombs, shells and snipes unarmed Palestinians, and keeps 1.5 million Gazans in a giant prison-cell -- all courtesy massive US funding. If the US was serious about democratic regime change, it would start with Israel. The tragedy of Syria is that the regime has shown no long-term political vision, and is now compounding its folly by shelling its own cities. Whatever violence has been committed by the uprising does NOT justify the mass murder of civilians. That's a recipe for a horrendous civil war, similar to what Lebanon or post-Soviet Tajikistan went through. But that is something the people of Syria need to sort out for themselves. Given the specific history and context of Syria, any foreign military intervention would be criminal neocolonial folly, and only make a bad situation infinitely worse.
One quibble: the blog seems to confuse Libya with Afghanistan. In particular, this statement:
> This was such a resounding success in Libya that western news agencies actually staged a fake collapse of Tripoli
> on the rebels’ behalf and broadcast it, to demoralize the state military and enable the rebel offensive –
> completing the bridge from reporting the news to making the news to making up the news.
Complete and total nuttery. I track the Libyan social networks pretty closely (let's just say I have my reasons), and they had a genuine, broad-based revolution supported by all sectors of Libyan society. The air campaign saved a lot of Libyan lives, but didn't change the outcome. Yes, postwar Libya faces huge challenges. Yes, things are still chaotic and there's plenty to critique. But they are rebuilding and they are making real progress (a flourishing press, actual political debates, peaceful demonstrations, etc.).
-- DRR