War in Syria: Military Intervention Is Coming Too Late

Suddenly, the U.S. wants to intervene in the Syrian conflict, but the plan seems badly thought out. It remains unclear how the punitive action will proceed and what goals lie behind it. This is in line with the U.S. president’s unclear attitude toward the conflict in the Middle East.

“Life punishes those who come too late.” The maxim of Mikhail Gorbachev — the last leader of the lost Soviet empire — seems to confirm its own validity once more with the impending U.S. intervention in the Syrian civil war. Barack Obama had a hands-off approach to the Syrian dictator for a very long time. The sudden and selective awakening of his conscience, after the most recent use of chemical weapons near the Syrian capital, will probably not end the pain of the Syrian people.

It is simply coming too late and it is unconvincing.

More than 100,000 dead, thousands wounded and millions of refugees were not a “civil offense” or reason enough to punish the Syrian regime. President Obama set the use of chemical weapons against Syria’s own people as the only “red line” for Bashar al-Assad. The dictator has now overstepped it, and now Obama cannot dodge. He must act. Otherwise, the policies of the U.S. will ultimately lose their credibility.

It remains unclear how the punitive action will proceed and what goals lie behind it. This is in line with the U.S. president’s unassertive and unclear attitude toward the conflict in the Middle East and, above all, the Syrian civil war. But even if the imminent military strike against the Syrian regime is called off in the end, it would become subject to unfavorable international, regional and local circumstances, which make its political consequences incalculable.

– Indeed, the Syrian president carries the full political responsibility for all of the cruelties, regardless of whether they were committed with or without chemical weapons. However, Assad is no longer the unfettered ruler in his own land. In the meantime, Hezbollah and Iran have become important players in the Syrian civil war.

– A military strike cannot be carried out as a clean, surgical intervention against Assad’s troops without striking his foreign helpers.

– The main argument against military action by the West against the Syrian regime is its unclear political goal. The U.S. and its allies are making it clear that they do not want to overthrow the Assad regime. In practice, such an attitude means nothing more than the acceptance of the continuation of the civil war.

– On a regional level, a military strike by the West could lead to further escalation of the Shiite-Sunni duel that Iran and Saudi Arabia are fueling in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Syria became a battleground for regional powers a long time ago.

Russia and China Will Block It

It seems certain numerous states in the international community — above all, Russia and China — would condemn a military strike by the West against Syria.

Naturally, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want to risk an armed conflict with the West over Syria. He will continue to arm Assad and see to it that the Syrian opposition does not profit in any way from a restricted Western intervention.

Therefore, military punishment of the Syrian regime will not give the liberating strike to the suffering Syrians. Meanwhile, the powers of the regime and the jihadis have won the upper hand in the civil war. The weakened democratic powers fell by the wayside long ago.

The U.S. and the West have missed the opportunity to stop the Syrian civil war in time and find a political solution to the Syrian crisis. Having only military power at their disposal, as their single currency for policies in Syria, is testimony to their political bankruptcy.