(CNN) -- Syria's civil war is not America's problem. Syria is surrounded
by Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab nations with large standing
armies and advanced military equipment. Their cowardice in acting to stop a war
on their doorstep should give us pause for thought. Why will they not act, but
we must?
Why is American gullibility for war so strong that countries such
as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel can dispense of their moral duties to the
American taxpayer?
Make no mistake about it: al Assad is a war criminal, having had
his own civilians and soldiers slaughtered in a war to keep his family in
power.
The sectarian, ethnic, and religious dimensions of the war have
kept the Obama administration (rightly in my view) away from direct military
involvement in the conflict.
But what has changed now? The use of chemical weapons to kill people jolts us into probable action,
but millions displaced, wounded and 100,000 dead did not. Why? Because the
banality of the policy shift rests on the assumptions that American cruise
missiles can prevent further use of chemical weapons, provide a face-saving
measure for President Barack Obama who can argue that he acted after his
"red line" had been crossed in Syria, and neuter critics of Obama's
Syria policy.
There is no absolute certainty as to whether al Assad used
chemical weapons, or rebel factions did. Al Assad has no credible motivation to
use these weapons at this stage, and in this phase of the conflict. He is not
losing.
If, as the Russians claim, it was al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusrah
group or Free Syrian Army elements that used weapons to bait America into the
conflict, then U.S. firepower would be futile in establishing how a ragtag army
and terrorists obtained chemical weapons. No amount of surgical strikes on
government facilities will prevent non-state actors from further use of these
weapons.
But if we believe that al Assad used these weapons, and launch
punitive attacks on Syria, what exactly are we targeting? The secretive and
globally isolated nature of the Assad regime and therefore his chemical
stockpiles means that we do not know where these are located.
We intervened in Libya with greater confidence because Gadhafi's
chemical weapons were mostly eliminated by an international inspection
arrangement prior to the Arab uprisings. By bombing Syria now we increase the
risk of al Assad using chemical weapons on populations and cities that are not
under government control, or to quell new rebellions. Damaging his air force
and known military installation would force him to consider his more extreme
options for regime survival. Syria is now a fight to the death for both sides.
U.S.-led military strikes in Syria will not change the tide of the
war. That is not the mission, nor is it achievable by aerial blitzing. The
Syrian opposition is not a government in waiting. It is too fragmented
ideologically, overwrought by al Qaeda affiliates, deeply anti-American, and
dominated by suburban fighters with little control of major cities, mercenaries
who are not committed to peaceful coexistence with Syria's religious
Christians, nor its Jewish neighbor.s in on Syria
Syria after al Assad will be worse. A new civil war will break out
between opposition factions. By bombing Syria today, we bear the burden of the
instability we leave in our wake.
President Obama imprudently mentioned a "red line" in
Syria and is now hostage to fortune. The president has changed his policy
stance on using illegal wire taps, closing Guantanamo Bay, gay marriage, and
more.
The heat of the moment and push from the chattering classes to
"do something" without knowing what will consume Obama into another
Middle East war. He beat Hillary Clinton as an anti-Iraq war candidate.
By intervening, Syria may well prove to be Obama's war, bequeathed
to a new president in 2016. Civilian casualties are inevitable: The images on
our screens will not be Syrians using chemical weapons to kill each other, but
American bombs creating carnage and killings in yet another Muslim country.
No comments:
Post a Comment