The US Needs a War in Syria Like It Needs a Hole in the Head

Obama still has not decided, but he probably won’t manage to avoid military operations.

The fact that America’s closest ally, Great Britain, will not participate in military action against Syria (as Parliament has decided) does not mean that there won’t be any. The unwillingness of Germany, Italy and the Arab League to act without the sanction of the U.N. Security Council (which they don’t have, and won’t) also doesn’t mean there won’t be military action. The U.S. could very well attack Syria on its own, even more so with the support of such an important ally as France (Syria was under French control from 1918 to 1946).

French President François Hollande, who does not need parliamentary approval for military action overseas, says that “all the options are on the table,” and that “France wants action that is in proportion and firm against the Damascus regime.” “There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means,” says Hollande. “France is one of them. We are ready. We will decide our position in close liaison with our allies.”

Military analysts say that if operations begin, France will use cruise missiles, but unlike the U.S., these will not launch from the sea, but rather from the air. French Mirage and Rafale fighters are equipped with SCALP cruise missiles, which have an effective range of 500 kilometers (310 miles). As was done earlier this year during military operations against Islamic extremists in Mali, French Air Force planes will carry out sorties from airfields on French territory, with in-flight refueling. Along with that, there are French fighters at bases in the United Arab Emirates and in Djibouti.

But of course, “sanctions by the appropriate means” is still not specified and will depend on that ally which is “first among equals.” President Obama has still not made a decision on the start of military operations against Syria. The administration has still not released the promised information showing the use of chemical weapons by Assad’s government forces. The only thing that is known is that this information is based on the interception, by American intelligence — and perhaps foreign intelligence, the Israelis for example — of conversations between highly-placed Syrian military officers on the topic of using chemical weapons against the rebels.

In an interview with the American television show PBS Newshour, Barack Obama said that he has not yet made a decision, but “the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place.” He emphasized: “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

The weekly U.S. News & World Report cites Michael Noonan, Director of the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute: “It’s tough to say what kind of response they will have; there’s already criticism and we haven’t done anything yet. This is something the United States needs like a hole in the head right now, but at the same time I think the British did a good job with the legal justification under the law.”

The political analyst speaks of the justification for military action against Damascus, which was the basis for a draft resolution that the British government introduced in the U.N. Security Council. (The draft “died” and will not be voted on; Russia and China indicated that they would use their veto power to prevent adoption of the resolution.)

There probably is a justification for military action, but under the condition that the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons is proven. So far, that proof is “not on the table.” British chemical weapons expert Professor Alastair Hay, who has taken part in the investigation of similar incidents himself, says it will require a few days to a few weeks to draw any conclusions once the U.N. inspectors return from Syria. They will return this Saturday, Aug. 31.

The near term will reveal whether Obama will await the U.N.’s results or begin earlier action based on American intelligence reports. But he will hardly remain inactive after events in Syria crossed the proverbial “red line” that Obama drew a year ago.