Military Strike in Syria? Obama Needs Caution
Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 26 August 2013
by Editorial (link to original)
After U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel accused the Syrian government's army of using chemical weapons on Aug. 25, the U.S. has been weighing the decision to use military force against Syria. President Obama had previously stated on Aug. 23 that the Syrian civil war was linked to the United States’ “core national interests.” He will soon be making a decision on the Syrian issue. He has also expressed that if there is no endorsement from the U.N., the U.S. will overstep international law by attacking another country.
Due to opposition from Russia and China, the U.N. will be unable to endorse a military strike against Syria. If the U.S. and NATO decide to wage war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, they will likely have to bypass the U.N., following the air strikes of the “Kosovo model.”
Even today, the U.S. still does not have evidence that the chemical weapons were deployed by the Syrian government. Given the confusion and reversal of Egypt’s political situation, the United States' use of military force in Syria will present greater dangers than it would have one or two years ago. Up to today, the United States’ interactions with the Middle East have only resulted in hard lessons. Directly entering Syrian affairs with military force will bring more harm than good.
The objective of the “Arab Spring” has currently fallen away from its initial goal of fighting dictatorship and into general confusion. The power of the Egyptian army lies in the idea of return, and in Western eyes, this has held greater appeal than their brothers who were elected democratically. In Syria, the civil war appears more and more to be a “religious war.” The Shiite and Sunni forces in the Middle East have been selecting sides within the Syrian civil war. It is very difficult for this kind of war to produce a clear “winner.”
If the West uses military force to punish al-Assad, this will only create new strife and balances of power for Syria. Even if they are able to push al-Assad out of power, this would contribute nothing toward stability, and the West would have to bear even more responsibilities regarding Syria’s future.
Westerners must recognize that they are not really concerned with democratic processes in the Middle East, but have simply assumed the likeliest political stance they could adopt. This presents some true worries about the Middle East’s uncertain democratic future. For instance, many of the most extreme leaders in the Middle East came to power through democratic election, and the West has no plan or action for addressing this issue.
If Obama goes against the U.N. and wages an “unlawful war” on a Syria whose future is unclear even to him, this would be an unspeakably stupid political move for the U.S.
Since the Arab Spring, al-Assad has lasted longest among Middle Eastern dictators. Moreover, circumstances seem to be moving in a direction favorable to al-Assad. This is due to an inherent force within Middle East affairs, and it is not something the U.S. can change by leading NATO toward Damascus and tossing a few bombs.
The outside world must be realistic about its intervention in the Middle East. Building a new and lasting political influence in that region is an exhausting task, and despite the United States’ power, it cannot create the exemplar country it so imagines.
From the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. has been unable to cleanly cut away the festers of one “rotten apple.” This has, indeed, contributed to the Obama administration’s deliberation about the situation in Syria. According to many analysts, Obama and Hagel’s declarations seem more like an attempt to pacify radical reactions domestically.
Given the chaos in the Middle East, there is no shortcut for solving this problem in Syria. To suggest that quick, decisive action will take care of itself is willful foolishness. Moreover, employing the military to kill more people in order to “stop killing” is particularly hypocritical. If the U.S. chooses this route, it is much more likely to become entangled within the chaos itself than to have the opportunity to walk away untethered.
Due to opposition from Russia and China, the U.N. will be unable to endorse a military strike against Syria. If the U.S. and NATO decide to wage war against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, they will likely have to bypass the U.N., following the air strikes of the “Kosovo model.”
Even today, the U.S. still does not have evidence that the chemical weapons were deployed by the Syrian government. Given the confusion and reversal of Egypt’s political situation, the United States' use of military force in Syria will present greater dangers than it would have one or two years ago. Up to today, the United States’ interactions with the Middle East have only resulted in hard lessons. Directly entering Syrian affairs with military force will bring more harm than good.
The objective of the “Arab Spring” has currently fallen away from its initial goal of fighting dictatorship and into general confusion. The power of the Egyptian army lies in the idea of return, and in Western eyes, this has held greater appeal than their brothers who were elected democratically. In Syria, the civil war appears more and more to be a “religious war.” The Shiite and Sunni forces in the Middle East have been selecting sides within the Syrian civil war. It is very difficult for this kind of war to produce a clear “winner.”
If the West uses military force to punish al-Assad, this will only create new strife and balances of power for Syria. Even if they are able to push al-Assad out of power, this would contribute nothing toward stability, and the West would have to bear even more responsibilities regarding Syria’s future.
Westerners must recognize that they are not really concerned with democratic processes in the Middle East, but have simply assumed the likeliest political stance they could adopt. This presents some true worries about the Middle East’s uncertain democratic future. For instance, many of the most extreme leaders in the Middle East came to power through democratic election, and the West has no plan or action for addressing this issue.
If Obama goes against the U.N. and wages an “unlawful war” on a Syria whose future is unclear even to him, this would be an unspeakably stupid political move for the U.S.
Since the Arab Spring, al-Assad has lasted longest among Middle Eastern dictators. Moreover, circumstances seem to be moving in a direction favorable to al-Assad. This is due to an inherent force within Middle East affairs, and it is not something the U.S. can change by leading NATO toward Damascus and tossing a few bombs.
The outside world must be realistic about its intervention in the Middle East. Building a new and lasting political influence in that region is an exhausting task, and despite the United States’ power, it cannot create the exemplar country it so imagines.
From the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. has been unable to cleanly cut away the festers of one “rotten apple.” This has, indeed, contributed to the Obama administration’s deliberation about the situation in Syria. According to many analysts, Obama and Hagel’s declarations seem more like an attempt to pacify radical reactions domestically.
Given the chaos in the Middle East, there is no shortcut for solving this problem in Syria. To suggest that quick, decisive action will take care of itself is willful foolishness. Moreover, employing the military to kill more people in order to “stop killing” is particularly hypocritical. If the U.S. chooses this route, it is much more likely to become entangled within the chaos itself than to have the opportunity to walk away untethered.