The violence in Syria has been going on for over 18 months and there is no clear indication of when it might end. There is virtually no question that President Assad has lost his legitimacy as the leader of Syria, but government forces continue to fight on his behalf, despite continuing defections and despite orders to kill ordinary Syrian civilians. Such loyalty is difficult to explain, but this article in the Christian Science Monitor offers some reasons why government forces remain loyal.
US-Pakistani relations are incredibly complex and difficult, although both states need each other’s support: the US needs Pakistani support in the war in Afghanistan, and Pakistan needs US support to counterbalance Indian power in South Asia. The US has just taken a step that will complicate the relationship further. It has designated the Haqqani network, an organized group of individuals in Pakistan dedicated to helping the Taliban in Afghanistan, as a terrorist group. The network has significant support within the Pakistani military and among parts of its civilian population, but the designation means that the US will have to take action against some very powerful people.
The new technologies offer great promise to poor countries. It allows them to leapfrog over the very costly infrastructural investments that historically been associated with communications networks. The Economist ran a terrific article on how Kenya is being affected by this revolution.
World Politics News 
I’ve noticed the citation of the Christian Science Monitor a few times throughout the blog. I was wondering whether you thought such a source would have any sort of noticeable bias when discussing matters so closely tied to religious conflict in the middle east? If not, is this source chosen for a specific reason, or just personal preference? Thank you.
LikeLike
The Christian Science Monitor is a highly regarded newspaper, noted for its objectivity in world affairs. Don’t let its name mislead you: like many papers in the US, there is a Christian bias, but that bias mainly reflects what the editors think their readers know and care about.
LikeLike
One very interesting aspect to the ongoing crisis in Syria is the recent response of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Like the Turkish Prime Minister, Clinton expresses the United States’ opinion on a peaceful government transition within Syria, thus ceasing the violence towards innocent solutions. Many problems arise within this proposition. If a government transition is not successful, or a poor one is put in place like in Libya, it will be a new safe haven for terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda; the United States was primarily reluctant to provide support to the rebels because they were supported by rebel groups, in which Assad had kept in balance. If a new leader or government were to be put into place that is not opposed to Assad, then rebellions would calm down for only a short period of time. The people of Syria want a complete regime change, and would not settle for someone in support of Assad. Currently, the United States has met with one of its only Middle Eastern allies Turkey and has agreed that a peaceful government transition is necessary, following condemning Russia for providing the Assad regime with military support. Clinton only takes a similar stance as Turkey because we fear a loss of the air space that is precious to our current missions within the Middle East. Personally, I believe that the United States should continue its “hands-off” policy. As a huge supporter in the fight against terrorism, the United States should feel reluctant to allow Syria to be so easily transformed into an Al Qaeda hot-bed. While morally incorrect, the United States should almost turn the other way as countries such as Russia and China continue to provide support for the Assad regime. In doing so, we are protecting our own interests in the Middle East. Hopefully we can talk about this in our World Politics class tomorrow at 4!
LikeLike
I agree completely. While the humanitarian impulse toward intervention is powerful, there is no clear course of action that does not open up the door to worse consequences. The US should work as hard as it possibly can to figure out some way to organize an effective international response to the crisis. But until a clear path becomes obvious and sustainable, not intervening is a better choice.
LikeLike
One thing that we may have to fear with intervention on the opposing side of Assad is another situation similar to Korea in the 1950s. Having two, possibly more if China or Western Europe ever decides to get involved, major world powers on financially and militarily supporting opposite ends cannot end peacefully. Russia will continue its involvement as long as they have their port and a large military base. An international response seems unlikely as long as Russia maintains its influence within Syria
LikeLike
I think that the situation might be even worse if there is outside intervention. At least in Korea the situation ultimately stabilized. The internal politics of Syria are so fragmented that I doubt that any stable equilibrium could be found if outside powers get involved.
LikeLike