The White House statement, appealing to the Bashar Al-Assad
regime to allow UN inspectors to visit the “alleged” site of the chemical
attacks, is appalling. The Obama administration has a serious deficiency in
viewing the Syrian situation for what it is. The Assad regime should not to be
mistaken for a rational player.
Time and again, the Assad regime has proved its interest in
preserving its own existence regardless of the price, including the complete
annihilation of its own people. With predictable consistency, Assad has showed
the true depth of his megalomania. The Only way for the U.S. to negotiate with
someone like that is for the Obama administration to engage with him on a level
that will resonate with his deep-seated power hunger; i.e. Threaten Assad’s
presidency.
Obama administration spokesperson Josh Earnest suggested
that the Assad regime can “demonstrate that they are on the side of the
international community, in opposition to the use of chemical weapons, is to
allow this U.N. team full access to the site to try to get to the bottom of
what happened.” Dear Mr. Earnest, the problem is not in proving whether or not
the Assad regime has authorized the use of chemical weapons against its people,
rather it is in allowing such an attack to take place in the first place. If
they control the stockpiles of chemical weapons within Syria, allowing for such
heinous attacks, the Assad regime have crossed the redline; and if by some
chance they did not, then they cannot be trusted to secure such weapons of mass
destruction. Granted, technically, the American administration can’t, with
clear conscience, confirm that the Assad regime has crossed the chemical
weapons redline set by Obama last year until objectively, and perhaps
independently, confirmed. But, using chemical weapons shouldn’t be the only
circumstance prompting a proactive U.S. stance toward Syria.
Undoubtedly, it is that proactive stance that Obama is
trying to avoid. Indeed, his reaction to the intelligence community’s
confirmation of Assad’s use of chemical weapons in June was limited at best, as
he announced a military assistance to the rebels. This is not enough. General
Dempsey’s letter to Congress communicated the thinking of the Obama
administration quite clearly; after all it was a policy explanation more than a
military one. A few points worth noting; firstly, that Dempsey is locked in an
equation that ends with “convincing” Assad to leave power. Understandably, saying
otherwise could be perceived as an assassination plan against a head of state,
which is illegal according to U.S. law. Nevertheless, Assad is not thinking of
the conflict in terms of staying in power or relinquishing his presidency, he
is engaged in an existential battle as he tries to avoid the fate of his peers
Moammar Qadhafi and Saddam Hussein. He is engaged in a zero-sum game where he
is hell bent on killing every last one of his foes, real or imagined including
women and children, to avoid being killed himself.
Secondly, the General believes that military actions
designed to punish the Assad regime, but fall short of tipping the balance of
power in this conflict “would not be militarily decisive, but would commit [the
U.S.] decisively to the conflict” said Dempsey. The U.S. cannot afford to
revert to isolationism. Considerable resources should be dedicated to Middle
Eastern issues as America’s interests are pegged to that part of the world.
Syria is a pivotal player in the Iranian-Hezbollah-Israeli triangle and in the
Shiite-Sunni struggle. More immediately, Syria is the latest Al-Qaeda frontier.
The Obama administration can’t afford to sit this one out even if the American
public doesn’t have the appetite to engage in a new conflict.
Prestige or effectiveness; the conflict
within the U.S.
Within the U.S., the administration’s response to the
chemical attacks in Syria is viewed naively as an issue of prestige. McCain
criticized the Obama administration for not mounting air strikes targeting the
Assad regime. He plainly discredited Obama’s redline threat as “hollow.” He is
correct in saying that “American credibility in the Middle East has never been
lower.” Certainly, the perception holds true beyond the Middle East. The U.S.
is experiencing a deteriorating global prestige as it is being ignored by the
Egyptian military as it continues to violently break up pro Morsi supporters,
sit-ins and never more evident in when Russia brushes off calls for it to hand
over Snowden.
As far as Syrians are concerned, it’s not about U.S. global
prestige, it’s fundamentally an existential issue as over 100,000 of them died
in this conflict and the United Nations estimating around 1 million child
refugees already. In fact, the administration is more than aware of the gravity
of the situation, even though the lukewarm response speaks to the contrary.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said “the administration can’t sit idly by
as the civil war claims hundred of victims a day.”
The conflicting statements within the Obama administration
signify a deep divide over the nature of the Syrian situation. Although Kerry
is framing the conflict on a moral premise, it is not the real reason behind
possible commitment of U.S. blood and treasure to the conflict in Syria; what’s
more is the global community knows it. It is disingenuous to frame the issue in
a moral frame without acknowledging the real payoffs for the U.S. Omitting it’s
self interest leaves people in the region suspicious of U.S. intentions as they
know better. After all, the U.S. isn’t known for its consistent and systematic
military intervention based on moral values; take Darfur as an example.
In The Balance
Washington is inadequately responding to Damascus. It’s
reaction as it tiptoes around whether the Assad regime actually used or
approved the use of chemical weapons that lead to the killing of upwards of
1,800 people, in unconfirmed reports, proves its reluctance to take an
actionable stance. In an effort to mitigate the appearance of weakness, the
U.S. moved cruise missiles within striking range of Assad’s military
installations. Nevertheless, Obama said that he is looking for two things to
happen before “attacking” Syria; one, a UN mandate and two, clear evidence of Assad’s
use of chemical weapons.
With what seems like increased regularity, the
administration is crossing its fingers hoping that they aren’t forced to act on
Obama’s threat. The increased international pressure on the U.S. to take action
is forcing Obama’s hand to take action. The global community; i.e. global
citizens, must not allow world leaders to pacify them with incremental hollow
grand gestures. The balance of power is with an active global citizen that sees
the world for what it is not through the lens of nationalistic power gains. It
is up to all of us to save our brothers and sisters in humanity targeted in
Syria by a ruthless and barbaric regime, never mind their quest for freedom and
justice.
A final reminder to the Obama administration that, in reality,
the situation in Syria has crossed a moral and principled redline when the
Assad security apparatus turned their guns on the Syrian people. Further, the
alarms should have been blaring when Al-Qaeda started descending on to Syria in
an attempt to establish a foothold. America must recognize the dangers of
inaction and/or the detrimental outcome of a misguided strategy aiming to
diffuse the indignation felt by the global citizen. It is time to address the
Syrian conflict with a clear purpose; moral and political.
No comments:
Post a Comment