America, Ready for an Imminent Attack on Syria
America is ready for an attack on Syria, which could be imminent: The military device is in position for combat, the reasons have been exposed to public opinion, Congress has been informed, a great deal of necessary support has been obtained from the international community and every other alternative has been discarded. Everything is prepared for President Barack Obama to give his orders, which he will give to the whole nation at the same time.
“We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said yesterday in an interview with the BBC. “It should be in concert with the international community,” he added. “There must be a response,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, who explained that it would be counterproductive for American interests to allow other regimes to believe that they can use chemical weapons with impunity. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has declared that there is “no doubt” that the Syrian government was responsible for the “heinous” chemical attack.
The government did not specify which means they will use in this operation, but the U.S. has several warships in the Mediterranean armed with cruise missiles and planes in different bases in the area that are able to bomb while out of reach of Syrian antiaircraft artillery. France and the U.K. also have fleets in the region and have displaced warplanes necessary to contribute to the attacks.
None of these three countries are waiting for any pending U.N. reports or any other diplomatic solution that could get in the way of the military intervention. These three, as well as Turkey, the Arab League, Canada and Australia, to whose leaders Obama spoke with on Monday and Tuesday, share the conviction that Syria used chemical weapons in the attack last week against rebel positions in the outskirts of Damascus, and they do not believe it is necessary to wait for the team of U.N. inspectors currently in Damascus to complete its mission, even more so after the team announced a delay in the investigations this Tuesday. None of the three governments allude to this mission, and in reality they are just waiting for Obama to decide on the most convenient moment to act.
This moment could even come this week. A lot of the U.S. media was in anticipation, citing high-ranking officials of the administration that the attacks could happen this Thursday. This Wednesday, Obama will participate in a very important event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It does not seem like an ideal moment to start a war. But all these considerations are secondary right now against those of a technical-military nature, which will probably decide the time and day of D-Day.
The U.S. government has been suggesting lately that the attack will be limited, but it is difficult to predict what that concept means. The mere launching of cruise missiles over a period of a few days would serve in sending a message to the Syrian regime regarding the intolerance of its combat methods by the international community, but it would hardly have an impact on the progression of the civil war or on the survival of Bashar al-Assad himself, of whom Obama spoke about having to step down from power more than two years ago.
A long and profound military operation, with the sustained use of aviation for example, would in turn multiply the obvious risks of an intervention of this nature into one of the most dangerous ones in the world, with Lebanon and Israel among others on the border of Syria.
The fact that everything is ready for an attack does not necessarily mean that it is well-prepared. In fact, there are many drawbacks. Although they have shared the reasoning behind this action with the public — especially the fact that the U.S. cannot tolerate the use of weapons as cruel as poison gas, especially when the U.S. president had previously warned not to do so — the population is still reluctant about the attack: only 9 percent support it, and 25 percent would support it in the instance that the use of chemical weapons was proven, according to a survey from The Washington Post.
At the same time, even though the White House has made sure that Congress has been informed about the president’s plans, several congressmen demand more precise details and recommend a specific approval from both houses. It is unlikely that Obama will take this recommendation, but it is required by law to seek approval in the event that U.S. involvement is for more than a period of two months.
It seems that the administration’s hope is that a long period will not be necessary. Such an example includes the intervention in Libya in 2011, when the U.S. only attacked for the first few days and then left rest of the air campaign to its European allies. But this time it will not be easy to repeat, partly because France and the U.K. do not have the military capacity to carry out what they did this time in Syria and partly because the offensive in that country is much more complex from every point of view.
Other controversial aspects of the operation that are looming lie in its legitimacy. Even though the U.S. has used military intervention in the past without U.N. backing — most prominently, that of NATO in the Balkans — the participants in the attack will have some problems legally justifying their actions, particularly if there are civilian casualties, which are not expendable.
“We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take,” Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said yesterday in an interview with the BBC. “It should be in concert with the international community,” he added. “There must be a response,” said White House spokesman Jay Carney, who explained that it would be counterproductive for American interests to allow other regimes to believe that they can use chemical weapons with impunity. Meanwhile, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has declared that there is “no doubt” that the Syrian government was responsible for the “heinous” chemical attack.
The government did not specify which means they will use in this operation, but the U.S. has several warships in the Mediterranean armed with cruise missiles and planes in different bases in the area that are able to bomb while out of reach of Syrian antiaircraft artillery. France and the U.K. also have fleets in the region and have displaced warplanes necessary to contribute to the attacks.
None of these three countries are waiting for any pending U.N. reports or any other diplomatic solution that could get in the way of the military intervention. These three, as well as Turkey, the Arab League, Canada and Australia, to whose leaders Obama spoke with on Monday and Tuesday, share the conviction that Syria used chemical weapons in the attack last week against rebel positions in the outskirts of Damascus, and they do not believe it is necessary to wait for the team of U.N. inspectors currently in Damascus to complete its mission, even more so after the team announced a delay in the investigations this Tuesday. None of the three governments allude to this mission, and in reality they are just waiting for Obama to decide on the most convenient moment to act.
This moment could even come this week. A lot of the U.S. media was in anticipation, citing high-ranking officials of the administration that the attacks could happen this Thursday. This Wednesday, Obama will participate in a very important event to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It does not seem like an ideal moment to start a war. But all these considerations are secondary right now against those of a technical-military nature, which will probably decide the time and day of D-Day.
The U.S. government has been suggesting lately that the attack will be limited, but it is difficult to predict what that concept means. The mere launching of cruise missiles over a period of a few days would serve in sending a message to the Syrian regime regarding the intolerance of its combat methods by the international community, but it would hardly have an impact on the progression of the civil war or on the survival of Bashar al-Assad himself, of whom Obama spoke about having to step down from power more than two years ago.
A long and profound military operation, with the sustained use of aviation for example, would in turn multiply the obvious risks of an intervention of this nature into one of the most dangerous ones in the world, with Lebanon and Israel among others on the border of Syria.
The fact that everything is ready for an attack does not necessarily mean that it is well-prepared. In fact, there are many drawbacks. Although they have shared the reasoning behind this action with the public — especially the fact that the U.S. cannot tolerate the use of weapons as cruel as poison gas, especially when the U.S. president had previously warned not to do so — the population is still reluctant about the attack: only 9 percent support it, and 25 percent would support it in the instance that the use of chemical weapons was proven, according to a survey from The Washington Post.
At the same time, even though the White House has made sure that Congress has been informed about the president’s plans, several congressmen demand more precise details and recommend a specific approval from both houses. It is unlikely that Obama will take this recommendation, but it is required by law to seek approval in the event that U.S. involvement is for more than a period of two months.
It seems that the administration’s hope is that a long period will not be necessary. Such an example includes the intervention in Libya in 2011, when the U.S. only attacked for the first few days and then left rest of the air campaign to its European allies. But this time it will not be easy to repeat, partly because France and the U.K. do not have the military capacity to carry out what they did this time in Syria and partly because the offensive in that country is much more complex from every point of view.
Other controversial aspects of the operation that are looming lie in its legitimacy. Even though the U.S. has used military intervention in the past without U.N. backing — most prominently, that of NATO in the Balkans — the participants in the attack will have some problems legally justifying their actions, particularly if there are civilian casualties, which are not expendable.