The Obama Administration has made no bones about backing the Syrian rebels, demanding repeatedly international unity on removing Bashar Assad and installing the rebels as the new regime. Despite this, they haven’t invaded Syria yet, and that’s got some of the rebels’ most outspoken backers downright confused.
The White House has said they don’t believe an invasion is “the right move” yet, and have cited questions about the opposition’s unity and exactly how they’d go about installing them militarily.
This has the backers of the invasion insisting that the administration doesn’t get just how great the rebels are. Some of them are chalking this up to simple error, while others are trying to explain it away as proof of Obama’s secret support for Assad.
“Obama could make Assad leave with the move of his finger. We now know that the whole world doesn’t want Assad to leave,” one activist noted, while another accused the US of “denigrating” the opposition to justify their lack of an invasion.
This of course assumes that there needs to be a justification to not invade a country. Still, this continues a trend of the rebels being surprisingly impatient in trying to get themselves installed as a puppet regime.
From virtually the moment the pro-democracy protests started being supplanted by military defectors looking to take over the country, there has been an assumption that the US and NATO “owe” Syria an invasion and the installation of their favorite rebels. Even as the US funnels arms into the nation, and as the Free Syrian Army finds itself awash in cash, there is a desire for instant gratification that is not being fulfilled, and an incredible well-spring of willingness to lash out at the West for not doing even more.