In Flexing Its Muscles, US Is Playing with Fire
Published in Liberation Daily
(China) on 29 August 2013
by Huihou An (link to original)
(China) on 29 August 2013
by Huihou An (link to original)
Translated from
by Dagny Dukach.
Edited by Bora Mici.
America’s attitude of suspicion with regard to chemical weapons in Syria has hardened more and more with each day. On Aug. 27, an American high official claimed that Aug. 29 was the earliest possible date when the U.S. government would consider launching a military strike against Syria.
A United Nations investigative team has already begun the search for on-site chemical weapons. However, the investigation has not yet been completed as Kerry is attempting to confirm that the weapons are the Syrian government’s. These events cannot help but evoke in peoples’ minds how America, in order to launch the Iraq War, claimed that Saddam’s government possessed weapons of mass destruction, and afterward, it became clear that the evidence the U.S. had displayed was entirely counterfeit. This time, the U.S. is playing “presumption of guilt” tricks, but these conspicuous features of hegemonic rule are not convincing anyone.
The U.S. and its European allies do not have the authorization of the U.N. Security Council. As such, if they were to brazenly initiate a military strike against Syria, it would be in violation of international law, and such action would receive the condemnation of the international community. For a long time, the U.S. has had a bad reputation in the region; an invasion of Syria would only further incite popular anti-Americanism.
A U.S. aerial strike would likely instigate counterattacks and retaliations from the Syrians and their supporters in the region. This would not only increase casualties and destruction while making a political solution to the Syrian issue even harder to achieve, but it would also bring even greater unrest to the countries in the region surrounding Syria and endanger the peace and stability of the area. At the same time, it would also further impede America's global "pivot to Asia" strategy. And moreover, if religious extremist powers took advantage of the power vacuum, it could make the region’s bad security situation even worse. Besides, opinion polls show that 60 percent of the American people oppose military intervention in Syria, so if Obama were to order an attack, it would trigger the criticism of his country’s taxpayers.
Since a military strike against Syria would have this many negatives, why does the U.S. still obstinately cling to its course? The period of unrest in Syria has already lasted two and a half years, and Obama has stated that “Bashar [al-Assad] must step down from office,” but after two years, Bashar still holds power. In the first half of this year, the situation in the Syrian civil war reversed, as the dominance of the government's army expanded, and in response to counterattacks, it was able to recover some of its lost ground. “Bashar must step down” became an empty slogan that Obama was incapable of making a reality. Under pressure from the international community, American and other Western powers accepted that a political solution was the correct way to resolve the crisis in Syria, but their stubborn insistence that Bashar’s removal from office must be a prerequisite for any political solution has made it hard to attain progress. Obama has warned that the Syrian government must not use chemical weapons — he has drawn a "red line." The Syrian opposition factions have already accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons many times and have requested that the U.S. honor its commitment and undertake some real action. Up until now, the U.S. has not had sufficient evidence and has not yet taken action. The United Kingdom, France and other European nations have also complained about America’s fecklessness. Much of the situation on the ground illustrates that while America’s position as a leader in the Middle East is not completely wavering, its leadership capabilities are clearly on the decline. All of these above-mentioned factors have provoked those in power in the U.S. to feel they must flex their muscles in the Syrian conflict in order to clearly demonstrate their determination to preserve their leadership status in the Middle East.
At the same time that the U.S. plots a strike against Syria, it also reaffirms that military means cannot resolve the Syrian crisis and that a political solution is still the only feasible way forward. The U.S. has further confessed that its limited military strike would not aim to overthrow Bashar and would not be able to alter the current situation in the Syrian civil war. Thus, the United States demonstrates its hesitancy and anxiety when it comes time to make a decision.
If the U.S. were to undertake a military strike against Syria, it would be a serious and dangerous event — they are playing with fire! Playing with fire can of course harm others, but it can also harm yourself. Since the start of this century, the U.S. has waged war after war in the region, but which conflict, after beginning by harming others, has not concluded in harming America? The war in Afghanistan was like this, as was the war in Iraq and and the conflict in Libya. If I may offer my advice to America: Do not play with fire — you might get hurt!
Translator's note: The author is a research fellow at the Chinese Institute for International Issues.
A United Nations investigative team has already begun the search for on-site chemical weapons. However, the investigation has not yet been completed as Kerry is attempting to confirm that the weapons are the Syrian government’s. These events cannot help but evoke in peoples’ minds how America, in order to launch the Iraq War, claimed that Saddam’s government possessed weapons of mass destruction, and afterward, it became clear that the evidence the U.S. had displayed was entirely counterfeit. This time, the U.S. is playing “presumption of guilt” tricks, but these conspicuous features of hegemonic rule are not convincing anyone.
The U.S. and its European allies do not have the authorization of the U.N. Security Council. As such, if they were to brazenly initiate a military strike against Syria, it would be in violation of international law, and such action would receive the condemnation of the international community. For a long time, the U.S. has had a bad reputation in the region; an invasion of Syria would only further incite popular anti-Americanism.
A U.S. aerial strike would likely instigate counterattacks and retaliations from the Syrians and their supporters in the region. This would not only increase casualties and destruction while making a political solution to the Syrian issue even harder to achieve, but it would also bring even greater unrest to the countries in the region surrounding Syria and endanger the peace and stability of the area. At the same time, it would also further impede America's global "pivot to Asia" strategy. And moreover, if religious extremist powers took advantage of the power vacuum, it could make the region’s bad security situation even worse. Besides, opinion polls show that 60 percent of the American people oppose military intervention in Syria, so if Obama were to order an attack, it would trigger the criticism of his country’s taxpayers.
Since a military strike against Syria would have this many negatives, why does the U.S. still obstinately cling to its course? The period of unrest in Syria has already lasted two and a half years, and Obama has stated that “Bashar [al-Assad] must step down from office,” but after two years, Bashar still holds power. In the first half of this year, the situation in the Syrian civil war reversed, as the dominance of the government's army expanded, and in response to counterattacks, it was able to recover some of its lost ground. “Bashar must step down” became an empty slogan that Obama was incapable of making a reality. Under pressure from the international community, American and other Western powers accepted that a political solution was the correct way to resolve the crisis in Syria, but their stubborn insistence that Bashar’s removal from office must be a prerequisite for any political solution has made it hard to attain progress. Obama has warned that the Syrian government must not use chemical weapons — he has drawn a "red line." The Syrian opposition factions have already accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons many times and have requested that the U.S. honor its commitment and undertake some real action. Up until now, the U.S. has not had sufficient evidence and has not yet taken action. The United Kingdom, France and other European nations have also complained about America’s fecklessness. Much of the situation on the ground illustrates that while America’s position as a leader in the Middle East is not completely wavering, its leadership capabilities are clearly on the decline. All of these above-mentioned factors have provoked those in power in the U.S. to feel they must flex their muscles in the Syrian conflict in order to clearly demonstrate their determination to preserve their leadership status in the Middle East.
At the same time that the U.S. plots a strike against Syria, it also reaffirms that military means cannot resolve the Syrian crisis and that a political solution is still the only feasible way forward. The U.S. has further confessed that its limited military strike would not aim to overthrow Bashar and would not be able to alter the current situation in the Syrian civil war. Thus, the United States demonstrates its hesitancy and anxiety when it comes time to make a decision.
If the U.S. were to undertake a military strike against Syria, it would be a serious and dangerous event — they are playing with fire! Playing with fire can of course harm others, but it can also harm yourself. Since the start of this century, the U.S. has waged war after war in the region, but which conflict, after beginning by harming others, has not concluded in harming America? The war in Afghanistan was like this, as was the war in Iraq and and the conflict in Libya. If I may offer my advice to America: Do not play with fire — you might get hurt!
Translator's note: The author is a research fellow at the Chinese Institute for International Issues.