Libya, Syria, What's The Difference?

Libya?  The international community lined up to "protect civilians" from a ruthless dictator.  Syria?  Well, the dictator is happily killing women and children, but we don't dare get involved.  Reuters' Paul Taylor:

There are strategic, political and practical reasons behind divergent Western responses to events in Syria, Libya and Yemen, after the initially hesitant Western embrace of democratic change in Tunisia and Egypt.

"All of these situations are different," British Foreign Secretary William Hague said on BBC television when questioned about apparent inconsistency.

"So we mustn't think that just because we're doing certain things in Libya, that we would be able or willing to do those things in other countries of the Arab world."

Hague said that in Libya, there was a direct appeal for help from the opposition and the Arab League had asked the U.N. Security Council to pass a resolution and to take action for a no fly zone. Western governments say they prevented an imminent massacre that Gaddafi had threatened to unleash in Benghazi.

Gaddafi had lost control of more than a third of his country and his armed forces were brittle and poorly equipped.

By contrast, Syria has a well-trained army with Russian missiles and combat aircraft, and suspected chemical weapons, making any Western military intervention utterly implausible.

There's also the little matter of Libya's 1.5 million barrels a day in oil exports...compared to Syria's paltry 150,000 or so.  So Syrians will continue to be murdered in the bloody crackdown there, now featuring tanks being used on protesters.  But there's not enough oil for us to get involved, no sir.  Iran would certainly use any military action against Syria as justification for a greater regional war...and it's a war they would win.

Libya?  Low-hanging fruit, I guess.