US Weapons against Assad
Published in Braunschweiger Zeitung
(Germany) on 3 May 2013
by Friedemann Diederichs (link to
original)
It was the first question Barack Obama was asked at the press conference: When will the president draw conclusions from the Syrian army's use of chemical weapons documented by the British, French and Israelis?
Obama advocated waiting and asked for more details and proof. It was a response that in the U.S. was taken to mean that Obama has no interest in a possible military intervention and is consciously setting the hurdles to an intervention so high that they cannot be cleared.
But the White House is presumably thinking about a compromise solution which is internationally controversial and rejected by the government in Berlin so far: arming the rebels in Syria. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that this is being considered, but that no decision has been made yet. In doing this, the U.S. government would be bowing to the pressure from France and Britain.
The German government's concerns that the weapons could fall into the wrong hands and thus further fuel the conflict may be justified, but they no longer seem to play an important role. More importantly, 61 percent of American citizens are currently against military intervention in Syria; even in the case of Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people, only 27 percent are in favor of an intervention. Furthermore, in the U.N. Security Council, where there is the threat of a veto from Moscow, military action is difficult to implement — but not supplying weapons.
Obama advocated waiting and asked for more details and proof. It was a response that in the U.S. was taken to mean that Obama has no interest in a possible military intervention and is consciously setting the hurdles to an intervention so high that they cannot be cleared.
But the White House is presumably thinking about a compromise solution which is internationally controversial and rejected by the government in Berlin so far: arming the rebels in Syria. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that this is being considered, but that no decision has been made yet. In doing this, the U.S. government would be bowing to the pressure from France and Britain.
The German government's concerns that the weapons could fall into the wrong hands and thus further fuel the conflict may be justified, but they no longer seem to play an important role. More importantly, 61 percent of American citizens are currently against military intervention in Syria; even in the case of Assad's use of chemical weapons against his own people, only 27 percent are in favor of an intervention. Furthermore, in the U.N. Security Council, where there is the threat of a veto from Moscow, military action is difficult to implement — but not supplying weapons.