What will be the consequences of President
Barack Obama’s failure to get the needed
domestic and international support to punish
Syria’s President Bashar Assad for gassing his
own citizens with serum and other deadly chemicals? That is the million dollar poser
before Americans and the global community
who are watching the outpouring of emotions
on both sides for and against the impending
military strike on Damascus. To some international observers on the Syrian
crisis: is Obama weeping more than the
bereaved? The United States lawmakers are
expected to seat today to take a
comprehensive look at the presidential request
for Congressional approval to use limited military force to incapacitate Syria’s President
Bashar Assad who has in the past two years
killed over One million Syrians and sent over
two million others into refugee camps in
Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt etc.
Bashar al-Assad
The plan to strike limited targets especially the
Syrian Military command and control
structures, the strategic institutions and
intelligence centers, and infrastructures that
that have been used to overwhelm the
opposition will cripple the military capabilities of the Assad regime. The military action by the US and its allies is
aimed at achieving a limited goal of telling
Assad that he can be punished for crossing the
red line. The US is however, facing a catch 22
situation in Syria. While the opposition camp would welcome the
ouster of Assad from power, the US political
establishment, its public and diplomatic
communities are concerned that toppling
Assad will only create another anti-US regime
in Syria. The failed experiment of regime change
campaign in Iraq, Egypt and Libya has warned
Washington to be wary of the forces pushing to
topple Assad. NUISSANCE DIPLOMACY Emboldened by the lack of international
consensus at the United Nations and domestic
divisions among the political establishment in
America, President Bashar Assad seems to be
lapping up the joy of seeing the great powers
unable to come to terms on how to handle the Syrian situation. The situation in Syria remains dicey and
Western powers are coming to terms with the
fact that their concept of promoting regime
change has often thrown up some unintended
consequences as they have seen in Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt. The complexity of the Syrian situation is
amplified by the fact that the most potent
rebel group in Syria is backed by Al-Qaeda.
Assad also enjoys the support of other radical
groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas. The US would not want to replicate the
experiences of Iran, Iraq, Libya and Egypt in the
name of exporting democracy and human
rights to Al Qaeda infested groups. Russia
knows that only Assad can guarantee and
protect its economic interest in Syria. BRITISH DUPICITY With the British already cold on joining in the
proposed military strike, the alliance between
US and France continues to suffer from the
expected global consensus to deal with Assad
for allegedly using chemical weapons on
Syrians, a practice that was banned globally after the Second World War. Then the British Parliament voted against going
to war, and Prime Minister David Cameron, an
advocate from the beginning, now had to bow
out. The British had been part of wars the
Americans had dreamed up. This was one crisis
that the British had helped create and the parliament voted against it. Many British members of parliament openly
said the United Kingdom was no longer the
Americans’ lap dog. For those who know Britain
would not want to make their daughter a widow,
the decision of members of British parliament
to join America to attack their son-in-law in Damascus has not come as a surprise. OBAMA’S DILEMMA Obama on his part has tried to avoid the
leadership mistake of George W. Bush in going
to Iraq, but there are discussions that the
President reserves to right to over ride the
Congress in the event of the Congress turning
down France seems fascinated by the outcome of its interventions in Libya and Mali, now it
want to add Syria to the list. But surely there will be unanticipated result of
the planned punitive strike on Syria for the
alleged use of chemical weapons against
civilian population by yet to be identified
culprits. As far as Washington and Paris are
concerned, President Bashar Al Assad is culpable and there is no reason for the civilized
world to let him go scot free. The United States and France have taken it
upon themselves to strike the fear of God into
Assad, who has been waging a two year costly
war on his people. On the surface the proposed
military strike is planned to destroy Assad’s
war making capacity and title the balance of power in the war that has been heavily against a
well armed Syrian Army. The second goal is to
ensure that exit of President Assad from power
but the issue of the post Assad regime in
Damascus is frightening evening to those who
are thinking along that line. The prospects of the emergence of an Islamic
state in Syria or paving way for Al Qaeda
backed groups to take over the reign of power
in Syria. This could further complicate the US
geo-strategic calculations in the Middle East
and beyond. The Canadians have decided that much as they
disliked chemical weapons use, they would not
be available for military intervention in Syria.
Germany has also excused itself, given the
logistics of its forth coming elections. Turkey
is ready to support the strike but the fear of Syria degenerating into another Lebanon is
potent. Jordan and Israel are not immuned
from a possible domino effect of the proposed
military strike. The relationships between Russia and in Syria
dates back to the 1970s when the defunct
Soviet Union supported the coup that brought
Hafiz Assad to power. Relationship between
the defunct Soviet Union, now Russia, and Syria
has been institutionalized at personal and institutional levels. Russia has supported the
Assad clan since the 1970s and remains totally
committed to the survival of the regime. Weakening Assad’s power base in a political
environment that requires strong leaders with
despotic tendencies will produce another
unstable country like Iraq, Libya, Egypt and
Afghanistan. OPTIONS OF MILITARY STRIKES OF SYRIA Those who are sceptical of military
entanglement fear that any action could
escalate those Western forces might get drawn
into a more protracted struggle, “mission-
creep” risking an open-ended military
commitment in Syria which could become another Iraq or Afghanistan. The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Gen Martin Dempsey, gave the most
authoritative assessment of the military
options as seen by the Pentagon that is
available in an unclassified form. Although
these are not mutually exclusive; a combination of different options could well be employed. The US has Four destroyers that are equipped
with cruise missiles in the eastern
Mediterranean USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS
Barry and USS Mahan. It has Cruise missiles
also be launched from submarines Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in
Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes Two aircraft carriers – USS Nimitz and USS
Harry S Truman are in the wider region Cruise missiles could be launched from a
British Trafalgar class submarine. HMS Tireless
was reportedly sighted in Gibraltar at the
weekend The United Kingdom has Royal Naval power in
the region namely: HMS Illustrious and frigates
HMS Montrose and HMS Westminster – which
includes helicopter carrier RAF Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus could also be
used Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is currently in
Toulon in the western Mediterranean France has Raffale and Mirage aircraft which it
could deployed from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE Past military interventions Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition,
anchored in international law; explicit mandate
from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces
from Kuwait ? Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb
resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of
UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air
campaign against Serb paramilitaries. ? In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000
NATO sorties against Serbia to prevent
massacres in Kosovo – legally controversial
with UN Security Council resolutions linked to
“enforcement measures” ? Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council
authorised creation of international force with
aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as
Somali state failed. ? Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN
Security Council authorisation for humanitarian
operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China
abstained but did not veto resolution. Air
offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi.
Barack Obama’s failure to get the needed
domestic and international support to punish
Syria’s President Bashar Assad for gassing his
own citizens with serum and other deadly chemicals? That is the million dollar poser
before Americans and the global community
who are watching the outpouring of emotions
on both sides for and against the impending
military strike on Damascus. To some international observers on the Syrian
crisis: is Obama weeping more than the
bereaved? The United States lawmakers are
expected to seat today to take a
comprehensive look at the presidential request
for Congressional approval to use limited military force to incapacitate Syria’s President
Bashar Assad who has in the past two years
killed over One million Syrians and sent over
two million others into refugee camps in
Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt etc.
Bashar al-Assad
The plan to strike limited targets especially the
Syrian Military command and control
structures, the strategic institutions and
intelligence centers, and infrastructures that
that have been used to overwhelm the
opposition will cripple the military capabilities of the Assad regime. The military action by the US and its allies is
aimed at achieving a limited goal of telling
Assad that he can be punished for crossing the
red line. The US is however, facing a catch 22
situation in Syria. While the opposition camp would welcome the
ouster of Assad from power, the US political
establishment, its public and diplomatic
communities are concerned that toppling
Assad will only create another anti-US regime
in Syria. The failed experiment of regime change
campaign in Iraq, Egypt and Libya has warned
Washington to be wary of the forces pushing to
topple Assad. NUISSANCE DIPLOMACY Emboldened by the lack of international
consensus at the United Nations and domestic
divisions among the political establishment in
America, President Bashar Assad seems to be
lapping up the joy of seeing the great powers
unable to come to terms on how to handle the Syrian situation. The situation in Syria remains dicey and
Western powers are coming to terms with the
fact that their concept of promoting regime
change has often thrown up some unintended
consequences as they have seen in Iraq, Iran,
Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt. The complexity of the Syrian situation is
amplified by the fact that the most potent
rebel group in Syria is backed by Al-Qaeda.
Assad also enjoys the support of other radical
groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas. The US would not want to replicate the
experiences of Iran, Iraq, Libya and Egypt in the
name of exporting democracy and human
rights to Al Qaeda infested groups. Russia
knows that only Assad can guarantee and
protect its economic interest in Syria. BRITISH DUPICITY With the British already cold on joining in the
proposed military strike, the alliance between
US and France continues to suffer from the
expected global consensus to deal with Assad
for allegedly using chemical weapons on
Syrians, a practice that was banned globally after the Second World War. Then the British Parliament voted against going
to war, and Prime Minister David Cameron, an
advocate from the beginning, now had to bow
out. The British had been part of wars the
Americans had dreamed up. This was one crisis
that the British had helped create and the parliament voted against it. Many British members of parliament openly
said the United Kingdom was no longer the
Americans’ lap dog. For those who know Britain
would not want to make their daughter a widow,
the decision of members of British parliament
to join America to attack their son-in-law in Damascus has not come as a surprise. OBAMA’S DILEMMA Obama on his part has tried to avoid the
leadership mistake of George W. Bush in going
to Iraq, but there are discussions that the
President reserves to right to over ride the
Congress in the event of the Congress turning
down France seems fascinated by the outcome of its interventions in Libya and Mali, now it
want to add Syria to the list. But surely there will be unanticipated result of
the planned punitive strike on Syria for the
alleged use of chemical weapons against
civilian population by yet to be identified
culprits. As far as Washington and Paris are
concerned, President Bashar Al Assad is culpable and there is no reason for the civilized
world to let him go scot free. The United States and France have taken it
upon themselves to strike the fear of God into
Assad, who has been waging a two year costly
war on his people. On the surface the proposed
military strike is planned to destroy Assad’s
war making capacity and title the balance of power in the war that has been heavily against a
well armed Syrian Army. The second goal is to
ensure that exit of President Assad from power
but the issue of the post Assad regime in
Damascus is frightening evening to those who
are thinking along that line. The prospects of the emergence of an Islamic
state in Syria or paving way for Al Qaeda
backed groups to take over the reign of power
in Syria. This could further complicate the US
geo-strategic calculations in the Middle East
and beyond. The Canadians have decided that much as they
disliked chemical weapons use, they would not
be available for military intervention in Syria.
Germany has also excused itself, given the
logistics of its forth coming elections. Turkey
is ready to support the strike but the fear of Syria degenerating into another Lebanon is
potent. Jordan and Israel are not immuned
from a possible domino effect of the proposed
military strike. The relationships between Russia and in Syria
dates back to the 1970s when the defunct
Soviet Union supported the coup that brought
Hafiz Assad to power. Relationship between
the defunct Soviet Union, now Russia, and Syria
has been institutionalized at personal and institutional levels. Russia has supported the
Assad clan since the 1970s and remains totally
committed to the survival of the regime. Weakening Assad’s power base in a political
environment that requires strong leaders with
despotic tendencies will produce another
unstable country like Iraq, Libya, Egypt and
Afghanistan. OPTIONS OF MILITARY STRIKES OF SYRIA Those who are sceptical of military
entanglement fear that any action could
escalate those Western forces might get drawn
into a more protracted struggle, “mission-
creep” risking an open-ended military
commitment in Syria which could become another Iraq or Afghanistan. The US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Gen Martin Dempsey, gave the most
authoritative assessment of the military
options as seen by the Pentagon that is
available in an unclassified form. Although
these are not mutually exclusive; a combination of different options could well be employed. The US has Four destroyers that are equipped
with cruise missiles in the eastern
Mediterranean USS Gravely, USS Ramage, USS
Barry and USS Mahan. It has Cruise missiles
also be launched from submarines Airbases at Incirlik and Izmir in Turkey, and in
Jordan, could be used to carry out strikes Two aircraft carriers – USS Nimitz and USS
Harry S Truman are in the wider region Cruise missiles could be launched from a
British Trafalgar class submarine. HMS Tireless
was reportedly sighted in Gibraltar at the
weekend The United Kingdom has Royal Naval power in
the region namely: HMS Illustrious and frigates
HMS Montrose and HMS Westminster – which
includes helicopter carrier RAF Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus could also be
used Aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is currently in
Toulon in the western Mediterranean France has Raffale and Mirage aircraft which it
could deployed from Al-Dhahra airbase in the UAE Past military interventions Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition,
anchored in international law; explicit mandate
from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces
from Kuwait ? Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb
resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of
UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air
campaign against Serb paramilitaries. ? In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000
NATO sorties against Serbia to prevent
massacres in Kosovo – legally controversial
with UN Security Council resolutions linked to
“enforcement measures” ? Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council
authorised creation of international force with
aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as
Somali state failed. ? Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN
Security Council authorisation for humanitarian
operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China
abstained but did not veto resolution. Air
offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi.
No comments:
Post a Comment