Why Libya and not Syria?

Why are the United States and Europe waging a war with bombs in the case of Libya but limiting their attacks on Syria to the verbal? Why is there the need to force one brutal dictator out, but allow another to continue murdering his countrymen?

Let's start with the usual, mistaken answer: oil. Libya has lots of it, and Syria doesn't. The problem with this answer is that the West stood, and stands, a much better chance of getting its hands on Libya's black gold by keeping in with Gaddafi, as it has for many years. All that the attacks against Libya have done is to disrupt supplies.

The other argument frequently presented to explain the different approach to the two countries is US hypocrisy. But this does little to explain the seeming contradiction either.

So what does the butcher in Damascus have that his opposite number in Tripoli doesn't? The humanitarian arguments used to justify the attacks against Gaddafi's regime - which I support - are just as valid, arguably more so, in the case of Syria. The brutality of Assad is matched only by the courage of those protesting against his rule. For months now men and women armed with nothing other than their desire for change have taken to the streets to face tanks and heavily armed soldiers. They have been tortured and gunned down, and their families have been imprisoned, but the protests continue.

Even in the cities now under the control of the military and the much-feared shabia civilian militias, people are refusing to back down, and still take to the streets to protest, only to be gunned down. And while all this is going on, the response of the United States and Europe is to sit on their hands. So once again, we might ask why.

Because Syria is much stronger militarily than Libya. Syria has one of the largest, best-equipped, and best-trained armed forces in the Middle East. It also has chemical and biological weapons, and its paramilitary forces are among the top 13 in the world. This is not the case with Libya's military, which has been divided by Gaddafi and is under-equipped.

The Libyan adventure has sated whatever appetite the United States might have had for involving itself in wars that do not directly affect its strategic interests. The Syrian dissidents are paying the price for the long and costly invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the incursion in Libya. Washington's military support for distant causes will in future be limited and selective. And as we know, Europe doesn't go to war without Washington. So the Syrians will have to go it alone.

Then there is the question of the two countries' neighbors: Libya is bordered on either side by Tunisia and Egypt, which seem to have set off successfully down the road to democracy. Syria is bordered by Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, Jordan and Turkey. Enough said.

Gaddafi has no allies, and his own family has tried to unseat him from power. But Assad has powerful friends both inside and outside the country, starting with Iran, which means Hamas and Hezbollah. Nobody even knows whether Israel would rather Assad stayed in office.

The reality is that we have no idea what is going on in Syria, and who is behind the protests there. Not long ago, the White House admitted that its failure to engage with those opposing Assad was in large part due to not having any contacts with the opposition in Syria. Obama and Clinton wouldn't know who to talk to there, even if they wanted to. Another senior White House official, who preferred to remain anonymous, told me recently that if the regime in Syria were to fall, the ensuing chaos and killing would be much worse than in other Arab countries, where there has been a transition of power.

That's as maybe, but nobody has told the Syrian people yet. They continue to take to the streets to demand their freedom. At any price.