Supporting Intervention in Syria, US Rationality Is Regressing

On Aug. 21, America and several other Western countries determined Syria was culpable in the case of chemical weapons usage. These countries are now quickly working to unify their stance. It already seems there can be no turning back from a military maneuver against the Bashar al-Assad administration.

It’s been noted that Syria’s chemical weapons incident violated America’s core interests, causing the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens to support their own authorities. This year, while the U.S. government was discussing whether or not to forestall the enemy in Iraq, U.S. media maintained the voice of reason, wherein the support and the opposition were more or less equal. Now the U.N. chemical weapons team is awaiting a thorough investigation and the U.N. Security Council still has not arranged a consultation, but U.S. public opinion already widely supports the use of force, displaying the regression of this nation’s rationality. In America’s national narrative, Washington’s righteous execution of God’s will does not need approval. This is precisely the danger of America’s religious consciousness — it is more likely to bring the country harm.

The U.S. is utterly entangled in the Syria situation. Two years ago, Libya erupted into war and chaos. The U.S., in view of profound lessons learned in the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, was apprehensive and unwilling to act rashly, but due to pressures from the U.K. and France, Washington could not refrain from action. Yet ever since President Obama issued the order for Air Force involvement, Congress has intensely opposed it. The White House therefore has no choice but to compromise and then yield to NATO to lead the intervention.

America retreated from its leading role in the military intervention in Libya because it was still caught up in two wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. Now the U.S. military is right in the process of withdrawing from Iraq, but American elites seem to have already forgotten those bitter lessons learned from the Iraq War. America lacks accurate intelligence and so has strayed down the wrong strategic path. Can it be determined now where in Syria chemical weapons were employed? Even U.N. experts on chemical weapons in Syria can’t offer any evidence, so how can America know for certain what was done under Assad’s authority? Are Syria’s opposition forces really incapable of making hypocritical claims to deceive the U.S.? Can America really err again and again, repeatedly sinking itself in the swamps of strategy?

China — along with all the nations of the world — emphatically opposes the use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. Our country once deeply suffered the calamities of biological weapons employed by the Japanese. It is extremely loathsome that 16 years after the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Treaty went into effect, a serious chemical weapons incident injuring blameless civilians may have occurred within Syria’s borders. But problem-solving strategies should go beyond indignant outbursts; it’s more important to carry out earnest investigations within the framework of the U.N. Security Council, to impose strict sanctions upon behaviors made to hinder investigation. In this aspect, the five permanent members of the Security Council not only have no reason for divergence, but also should put in a concerted effort to cooperate, requiring Assad’s regime to provide assistance. At present, the Syrian government believes it has not engaged in the purported chemical warfare within its own borders; it also is willing to provide the U.N. chemical weapons team with a more comfortable environment for investigation. These points are worthy of acknowledgement in the international community. Regardless of the investigation’s results, the investigation itself requires time. If the U.S. and other nations lack patience and are unwilling to investigate in earnest, unwilling to convince the Security Council through reasoning, speak without evidence, do not obtain lawful authorization and furthermore persist in their old ways, the result will not only impair the authority symbolized by the United Nations Charter, it could also cast America into yet another unpredictable disaster.

It’s not that the U.S. and other Western countries fear wading out into greater depths out of ignorance of the depth. They are unwilling to expend effort on investigation or to bother with the complication of going before the Security Council, and are even more unwilling yet to move ground forces withdrawing from Iraq into Syria; hence, the remaining policy choices are indeed limited: execute an air strike against some Syrian government political and military targets, including guided missile attacks.

One can expect that the functionality of the Syrian government’s military will be broken and the opposition military’s decline will be eased, but Syria’s ground war will remain deadlocked — it will still be difficult for one side to emerge from this civil war with a decisive victory. However, the U.S. and other nations’ military involvements may stimulate regional and global Muslim extremist forces to counteract Western nations. The more America’s counterterrorism “counters,” the more chaos it creates; I fear its impact on the strategic balance of influence — toward America in the Middle East as well as globally — will also be a great revelation for Washington.