The Syrian question?

S P SETH

Will he or will he not bomb Syria? He said he would. But later, he said he wouldn’t for the time being until the US Congress also had a say on this. However, if the Congress voted against it, it wouldn’t be binding on President Obama and the bombing might still go ahead, so we are told. If you, the readers, are confused, so are many analysts. It would appear, though, that the bombing would go ahead at some point soon as, without it, the US’ ‘credibility’ might suffer. A US naval flotilla is already poised to rain missiles on Syrian sites to destroy command and control centers as well as warehouses with weapons’ stockpiles.

The US wants to punish the Assad regime for crossing Obama’s ‘red line’ with its alleged use of chemical weapons against its civilian population. Logically speaking, the Assad regime would be daft to do this when they were already making inroads against the rebels. And that too at a time when the regime had allowed UN experts to visit the sites said to have been subjected to earlier chemical attacks.

So far, Russia and China have used their status as permanent members of the UN Security Council to veto any military action against the Assad regime, thus denying international legitimacy. The findings of the UN experts on chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus have yet to be finalized. Indeed, the UN experts had to withdraw hurriedly from Syria with an imminent US attack on the horizon, postponed subsequently with a last minute change of mind by President Obama.

Whatever the inspectors’ findings, the US and its allies have already come to the firm conclusion that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack. John Kerry, the US secretary of state, reportedly said that while the evidence being gathered by the UN experts was important but it was not necessary to prove what was already “grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense.” In other words, the corroboration from the UN experts would be a plus but, if it weren’t forthcoming, the enormity of the crime would be pinned on the Assad regime.

In any case, the Syrian regime had engaged in a “cynical attempt to cover up” their actions, not only by delaying the arrival of the UN team but also by their subsequent shelling with conventional weapons of the affected area to leave no trace of a nerve gas attack. In other words, a UN report against Assad regime’s culpability, if forthcoming, will not be credible.

Here is where the entire thrust of the US case against Syria starts looking like the rationale for the Iraq war disaster. President George Bush had come to the conclusion, without objective supportive evidence, that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he was in league with al Qaeda—both untrue. Which provided the basis for the US and its allies to attack Iraq, for which that country is still paying a heavy price.

One can only hope that the US and its allies would have learnt their lesson from the Iraq war. It was, for instance, supposed to be a war of liberation for the Iraqi people when they would be thronging the streets of Baghdad to welcome the victorious US army. And we know what happened to Iraq and what is still happening there in the aftermath of the war, started in 2003. The US forces finally left in 2011, leaving the mess for the shell-shocked people of Iraq.

As with Iraq in the early stages when the job seemed so easily accomplished, there is the same sense of optimism that a surgical missiles’ strike from the US fleet in the Mediterranean will significantly degrade the Syrian command and control centres and weapons stockpiles, perhaps even destroy chemical weapons, without any need for US troops on the ground. In other words, it will be a sharp and limited intervention with very little cost in human and financial terms. But this is not borne out by the examples of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and earlier, in Vietnam which dragged on.

Chris Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the US Institute for the Study of War, said to be a key exponent of the surgical missile strike plan, apparently is having second thoughts. Quoted in the Foreign Policy journal, he said that, “I never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to be advocacy, even though some people [policy makers] took it as that.”  He elaborated that, “Punitive action [against Assad regime] is the dumbest of all actions” because it won’t produce the desired effects.  As for destroying chemical and other weapons’ stockpiles, “The logical response is if any weapons are left in the warehouses, he’s [Assad] going to start dispersing them among his forces if he hasn’t already.” Besides, bombing the weapons warehouses might cause mass casualties.

Against this backdrop, what exactly will the US hope to achieve with punitive military action when even its most loyal ally, the United Kingdom, is baulking at the prospect with the country’s parliament voting against any military action? With the rebel movement now in the grip of the militants and fighters with al Qaeda connections, the US certainly doesn’t want Syria to become a regional centre of jihad, like another Afghanistan.

At the same time, Assad is hardly a preferred alternative for the US and its allies, as it will deepen the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah nexus with disturbing regional implications, including for Israel. The US’ regional allies, like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, will be hugely upset if Assad regime were to prevail. But, at the same time, a limited operation without a follow up strategic plan doesn’t seem to advance US interests in any meaningful way.

Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at Washington’s Centre for Strategic Studies, an old hand and insider, sees a clear logic in it. Writing in the New York Times, he opined, “There is only one outcome that the US can possibly favor: an indefinite draw.” He added, “By tying down Mr Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against al-Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies [and of Israel] will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies…”

This might appear a smug and satisfying outcome for the US but to prolong the agony of the Syrian people is patently inhuman. Besides, military intervention(s) seldom remains limited, as we know from the recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Note: This article first appeared in the Daily Times.

Contact: sushilpseth@yahoo.com.au