Dear friends, I can do no more
than write in response to the moment. The situation with regard to Syria is so
fluid, that by the time you receive this, it may have shifted. Accept my
apologies in advance if that occurs.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to choice: More and more it's
looking as if there are no alternative options for Obama with regard to whether
the US hits Syria. He is being squeezed into something that he might have
otherwise passed on.
Certainly, the climate is heating
up, and the media are talking about "when, and not if." What is more,
the leaders of Britain and France are ready to go and expecting him to
participate with them. From behind the scenes, the Gulf states, most
notably Saudi Arabia, are encouraging this action because of their fear of Iran.
I read about Obama as the head of
the coalition, and I laugh. It is not altogether clear that he has even decided
definitively; Defense Secretary Hagel keeps saying the military is ready for
whatever the president decides.
The issues haven't changed for
Obama. He is obsessed with securing unassailable documentation, even
beyond all that has been provided (including conversations among Syrian
intelligence agents that were picked up by Israel), and in spite of what people
speaking for the US have said about the certainty that the gas attack was
Assad's doing. Maybe he is looking for someone in the Syrian military who
participated and has since defected? To me, to stretch this out any
further seems a stalling tactic. Does a leopard change its spots?
The other issue is one of not
moving unilaterally. We've covered this ground. The UN Security Council
is blocked because of resistance by Russia and China.
But now US State Department
spokesperson Marie Harf has said:
“The Security Council is an
important venue…but we cannot be held up in responding by Russia’s
continued intransigence." (Emphasis added)
While Russia will veto action
again Syria in the UN, a source in Moscow told the Interfax news agency this
evening that, "Russia will not intervene if Syria is
attacked."
Russia will stand aside, although
Syria has use of Russian equipment that has already been provided.
~~~~~~~~~~
Because of the readiness of
certain other nations to participate, the US would not be going it alone. And
there is precedent for doing this. Says the International Committee of the Red
Cross, arbiter of the Geneva Conventions:
"In crises and conflicts since the
end of the Cold War considerations specifically identified as 'humanitarian'
have been repeatedly designated by States and international bodies as grounds
for threatening, and embarking on, international military action."
What we're looking at here, at
least in part, is a tension between what is technically "legal" according
to UN or international legal standards as widely interpreted, and what is humane
and proper in the 21st century. Can civilized people stand by while
innocents by the hundreds, including small babes, are gassed because the UN has
not approved a response?
Part of the legal catch here is
with regard to the fact that Assad is killing his own people. This raises
issues of sovereignty. (Did I just write that?) Were he hitting
innocents of another nation with gas, the situation would be more clear
cut. Legally, not morally.
~~~~~~~~~~
If there is an attack on Syria, it
will not represent the first blows of a full scale war. That much is
clear. It would be, rather, a means of delivering a warning meant to deter
him from further use of non-conventional weapons. While his military would
be somewhat degraded, he would not be taken out, and it is assumed that -- minus
the gas -- the civil war would go on. It might even go on without a major
shift in balance -- although that would remain to be seen.
In my opinion, this is the
preferable action -- to deliver a much-needed message to Syria and its patron
Iran and to strengthen seriously eroded US deterrence power, without
handing a victory to dangerous jihadist rebels.
Maj. Gen. (res) Uzi Dayan, a
former deputy chief of the IDF General Staff and a former head of the National
Security Council (pictured below), told Times of Israel that he is
strongly opposed to taking down Assad:
"What really frightens me is a
ring of Muslim Brotherhood nations from Turkey to Egypt. That’s what I’m most
concerned about.
"Whoever is interested in keeping
the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan, would do well not to support the deposing of
Bashar Assad, because they [Jordan] are the next target."
What is more, Dayan believes that
the 100,00 who have thus far died in Syria would be a "promo" compared to what would happen if jihadists took
over.
Credit:
jafi
~~~~~~~~~~
But there are others
who see it differently. Some, focused on Iran,
are eager to see a more significant crippling of Iran's
proxy, Syria -- and with it, Hezbollah. Prime Minister Netanyahu
is said to be among these -- he reportedly sees the weakening of Iran as
trumping all other objectives.
Among analysts, there is Daniel
Pipes, who is arguing for a stronger hand in hitting Assad because of
unanticipated results from a limited strike. It might, he
says, actually increase Assad's dependence on Tehran or cause an unstable
Assad to act in erratic fashion.
These
arguments, whether valid or not, are moot: There is no way that Obama
is going to commit to a major war effort in Syria.
~~~~~~~~~~
Predictions are that
Obama will rely on the high precision Tomahawk cruise missiles -- which are
essentially unmanned aircraft capable of changing course to hit a target --
launched from destroyers out at sea, out of immediate range of
retaliation. They are frequently the "weapon of choice" for US
presidents.
The four US destroyers currently
in the Mediterranean can each carry "dozens" of Tomahawk missiles.
Credit:
fallinpixel
You can see further information
about this weapon here:
~~~~~~~~~~
Targets would be military
-- military compounds, front-line artillery batteries, etc.
There would be no attempt to hit non-conventional weapons caches. And no
attempt to physically take out Assad or his government.
It is likely that the attacks
would continue for several days.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel there is heightened
interest in what will happen, of course. Concern. But in the
main no panic, other than a rush on gas mask supplies. People are
going about their business. In fact, there are still end-of-the-season
vacationers enjoying themselves in the north, with no warnings coming -- as of
yet -- from homefront authorities.
After a high level security
meeting today, a spokesman for Netanyahu said:
"Pursuant to the security
consultation that was held today, there is no reason to change daily routines."
The Air Force increased
the level of alertness of its Arrow 2 missile system, which is designed to
intercept ballistic missiles. The IDF is boosting its forces in the north;
there has been a partial call-up of reserves.
Iron Dome batteries have been
moved to the north and center of the country, as well.
Credit: Jewish
virtual library
Israeli intelligence considers it
unlikely that there would be a major retaliation by Assad aimed at Israel -- his
inflamed rhetoric aside. Both Netanyahu and Ya'alon have made it crystal
clear that were there attack on Israel, the response would not be
tempered.
Warned Netanyahu:
"The State of Israel is ready for any scenario. We
are not part of the civil war in Syria but if we identify any attempt whatsoever
to harm us, we will respond, and we will respond with great might."
While Ya'alon said:
"Those who dare to test us will
encounter the might of the IDF."
Assad would be wise to heed these
warnings. If we are attacked, we will go to war with Syria and his regime would
come down.
What there may be is a response --
a handful of rockets -- that is tepid enough for Israel to possibly
even ignore, and in any event not sufficient to provoke an all-out
Israeli attack. It might come second-hand, via Hezbollah, from
Lebanon, giving Assad deniability.
This, of course, is simply the
best guess as to what may happen. No one can be
certain.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday, Israel's National
Security Adviser Maj.-Gen. (res.) Ya'akov Amidror met in
Washington with Susan Rice, his American counterpart. Whatever else
they discussed, I know there was a request put forth that Israel be forewarned
about an attack.
Which leads to the next question,
when?
I'm reading some reports that say
possibly as early as Thursday (tomorrow), but I doubt this. UN inspectors
have not left Syria yet -- and in fact have returned to the site of the
gassing. My understanding is that there is considerable reluctance to do
anything while they are in the field. I believe they are leaving
early next week.
Certainly waiting weeks cripples
the impact of what is intended, which requires a certain immediacy. And
the US is advancing yet another reason for acting with speed: Fear of another
chemical attack. The city of Aleppo, Syria's largest city and a rebel
strong hold, is considered a likely target.
Another ten days perhaps, at the
outside? Sooner?
~~~~~~~~~~
I table all other news for another
post...
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
If
it is reproduced and emphasis is added, the fact that it has been added must be
noted.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment