Display of Weakness
The punishment of Assad’s crimes must wait. Barack Obama has chosen to look for legitimacy in the institutions of representative democracy in the absence of the international legitimacy that is needed to bomb Syria without becoming a rival of George W. Bush — the president who was criticized for the one-sided and illegal war in Iraq. Thus Obama delays the decision on the diabolical problem that will make him choose between ruining his presidential image and breaking his word or asserting his presidential authority and the dissuasive ability of the United States at the price of a military venture with an uncertain future. The postponement of the attack, which Obama presented as a decision already made, is Assad’s first victory obtained over the United States, without waiting for the impact of their missiles.
The severity of the mishap is greater to the extent that the conclusions presented by the White House on the chemical attack have maximum aspects of strength. Nobody could sensibly expect that Washington set up or allow a new militaristic trap to be laid out, in the form of falsification or exaggeration by the Secret Service — like what happened with Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction during Bush’s presidency. It is clear that Assad is a criminal and a mass murderer who deserves to be punished, possibly in accordance with international law, that is to say, brought and judged before an international court, although his country isn’t signatory to the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court.
But that is not the problem. The meaning, aim and consequences of a purely retaliatory operation — particularly if it should lead to the end of the war and the criminal regime — only show the authority and strength of the United States as an example and instruction to countries like North Korea or Iran.
In this case, the debts — normally higher than whatever military action is charged, including what is carried out in the air — have already added up before Obama could pull the trigger on which he had his finger. The special relationship between Washington and London has been the first loss of this war that has not begun. The second is the power of the presidential word, which needs time and democratic legitimacy to turn into facts. Putin emerges great and strengthened from the situation. So does Iran’s Ali Khamenei. It is a sad situation that their best military ally is the weak and unpopular French President François Hollande.
Obama wanted a display of strength to deter troublemaking states from the use of chemical weapons and provide the feeling that someone is watching over global security, but at the moment he is getting the opposite. It’s the problem of who came to the United States to take on several fronts, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and now is forced to intervene in a war. Obama is right to seek the support of Congress — but the only prudent way for a war in a place so poisoned as Syria is in international diplomacy, political negotiation and multilateralism.
The severity of the mishap is greater to the extent that the conclusions presented by the White House on the chemical attack have maximum aspects of strength. Nobody could sensibly expect that Washington set up or allow a new militaristic trap to be laid out, in the form of falsification or exaggeration by the Secret Service — like what happened with Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction during Bush’s presidency. It is clear that Assad is a criminal and a mass murderer who deserves to be punished, possibly in accordance with international law, that is to say, brought and judged before an international court, although his country isn’t signatory to the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court.
But that is not the problem. The meaning, aim and consequences of a purely retaliatory operation — particularly if it should lead to the end of the war and the criminal regime — only show the authority and strength of the United States as an example and instruction to countries like North Korea or Iran.
In this case, the debts — normally higher than whatever military action is charged, including what is carried out in the air — have already added up before Obama could pull the trigger on which he had his finger. The special relationship between Washington and London has been the first loss of this war that has not begun. The second is the power of the presidential word, which needs time and democratic legitimacy to turn into facts. Putin emerges great and strengthened from the situation. So does Iran’s Ali Khamenei. It is a sad situation that their best military ally is the weak and unpopular French President François Hollande.
Obama wanted a display of strength to deter troublemaking states from the use of chemical weapons and provide the feeling that someone is watching over global security, but at the moment he is getting the opposite. It’s the problem of who came to the United States to take on several fronts, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and now is forced to intervene in a war. Obama is right to seek the support of Congress — but the only prudent way for a war in a place so poisoned as Syria is in international diplomacy, political negotiation and multilateralism.
Previous article![]( "Syria, Die for Obama? No, Thank You.")
