Is Obama going to give the word to
bomb Syria?
The parameters of the situation
are not simple.
~~~~~~~~~~
An exceedingly strong case can be
made for the fact that he must at this point. For deterrence matters, and
threats made must be acted upon. It just about a year ago that the
president said:
"...we have been very clear to the
Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is
we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being
utilized. That would change my calculus."
Obama cannot fail to follow
through on what he said without causing damage -- weakening the US position
and essentially giving the Assads of the world a license to conduct themselves
as they please.
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a
press conference with French Foreign Minister Fabius yesterday, carried this
thought to its logical conclusion:
"...Assad’s regime is not acting
alone.
"Iran, and Iran's proxy, Hezbollah,
are there on the ground playing an active role assisting Syria. "In fact, Assad's regime has become a full Iranian client and Syria has become Iran's testing ground. Now the whole world is watching. Iran is watching and it wants to see what would be the reaction on the use of chemical weapons."
(Release from the Prime Minister's
Office)
~~~~~~~~~~
And then see this, regarding
implications, from Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan Halevi, of the Jerusalem Center for
Public Affairs (emphasis added):
"...the Assad regime is
experiencing a sense of existential threat and is no longer foregoing doomsday
weapons in its effort to survive.
"War crimes and crimes
against humanity – indeed, constituting a form of genocide – have been carried
out in Syria on a large scale and before the eyes of the world. The
lessons of the Second World War have not been learned. Even in the era of modern
communications, with daily documentation of the atrocities, genocide can occur
under conditions where the international system is paralyzed by interests and
rivalries between the powers."The international impotence in the face of these events weakens deterrence against the use of nonconventional weapons and has implications in the Iranian context as Tehran continues on its determined march toward nuclear weapons."
~~~~~~~~~~
If all of this is solidly
convincing, what then is the downside of a US attack?
There is no suggestion that the
Americans would take out Assad's cache of non-conventional weapons. That is
not even being considered. This, as I wrote recently, could not be done by
bombing, as it would spread toxins in the air. And Obama has absolutely no
intention of sending in troops on the ground.
So Assad would be hurt at some
level -- punished for what he did, but his gas supplies and other weapons of
mass destruction would still exist. And, if he is severely weakened, there
is the chance that rebels might secure some part of that cache of
non-conventional weapons. "Rebels," right now, most likely means al-Qaeda or
other jihadists. For them to get those weapons is something to be very
deeply concerned about.
We don't know that radical rebel
forces have not already used gas in one battle or another -- there are charges
that remain unconfirmed. What we can be certain of is that they would have
no compunctions about using them. And as their goals (an international
caliphate, the destruction of the West) are larger than simply winning the
war in Syria -- they might use them broadly, attempting to do damage to Israel
and to American and other Western interests in the Middle East.
We must hope that we never see
this scenario!
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Reuters, since
the reports of gas used by Assad have surfaced, there has been an increase
in the amount of assistance flowing to the rebels. Four-hundred tons of
equipment, funded by Gulf states, is coming in via Turkey. What has come
in so far -- "mostly ammunition for shoulder-fired weapons and
anti-aircraft machine" -- is being distributed in the north. But there is no
clarity in this report with regard to which rebel groups are
recipients. "Weapons still waiting to cross into Syria included more sophisticated anti-tank
guided weapons..."
At the very same time there is
news that Western-trained rebels guerillas (these presumably secular or more
moderate) are moving towards Damascus.
~~~~~~~~~~
What if these reinforcements, plus
the damage done to Assad in a bombing, were to turn the tide of the war
definitively against him?
I think Edward Luttwak probably
has it right when he says, "In Syria, America Loses If Either Side
Wins":
"It would be disastrous if
President Assad's regime were to emerge victorious after fully suppressing the
rebellion. Iranian money, weapons and operatives and Hezbollah troops have
become key factors in the fighting, and Assad's triumph would dramatically
affirm the power and prestige of Shiite Iran and Hezbollah, posing a direct
threat both to the Sunni Arab states and to Israel.
"But a rebel victory would also be
extremely dangerous for the U.S. and for many of its allies because extremist
groups, some identified with al-Qaeda, have become the most effective fighting
force in Syria. If the jihadis were to
triumph in Syria, Israel could not expect tranquility on its northern
border.
"The war is now being waged by
petty warlords and dangerous extremists of every sort: Taliban-style Salafist
fanatics who beat and kill even devout Sunnis because they fail to ape their
alien ways, Sunni extremists who have been murdering innocent Alawites and
Christians merely because of their religion, and jihadis from Iraq and all over the
world.
"There is only one outcome
that the U.S. can possibly favor: an indefinite draw. By tying down Assad's army
and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against al-Qaeda-aligned extremist
fighters, four of Washington's enemies will be engaged in war among themselves
and prevented from attacking Americans or America's allies." (Emphasis
added)
~~~~~~~~~~
So, where are we?
I keep reading that "the guessing"
is that Obama will act. That the feeling now is that he must act. That
he's giving broad hints that he is going to act.
But that's where it stops, as I
write. Again and again, Obama indicates the need for more certain
documentation.
UN inspectors finally did get to
the site of the alleged gassing, enduring some gun fire on the way. But
the US says that it was too late -- that Assad didn't allow these inspectors to
get through until critical evidence had been removed. I don't know. They
took specimens.
~~~~~~~~~~
Well before this, I had picked up
information that Israel intelligence had provided documentation of the fact that
Assad had used gas. Now see this (emphasis added):
"An IDF intelligence unit listened
in on senior Syrian officials discussing a chemical attack that allegedly took
place on the outskirts of Damascus and left hundreds of Syrian civilians dead
last Wednesday, a major German publication
reported.
"According to the report Saturday
in Focus magazine, a squad specializing in wire-tapping within the IDF’s
prestigious 8200 intelligence unit intercepted a conversation between
high-ranking regime officials regarding the use of chemical agents at the time
of the attack. The German report, which cited an ex-Mossad
official who insisted on remaining anonymous, said the intercepted conversation
proved that Bashar Assad’s regime was responsible for the use of nonconventional
weapons."
[According to a channel 2 TV
report] "The nerve gas shells were fired from a
military base in a mountain range to the west of
Damascus...
"The TV report further added that 'the assessment in
Israel' is that the attack was intended to serve as the possible start of a
wider operation."
~~~~~~~~~~
Are we seeing an Obama who finally
knows he must act but is preparing to do so with caution? Or is this no
more than the typical Obama indecisiveness? Ever the
internationalist, he has explained:
"If the US goes in and attacks
another country without a UN mandate and without clear evidence that can be
presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law
supports it - do we have the coalition to make it work? Those are
considerations that we have to take into account."
Plus, I'm reading that the US
would have to wait until the UN inspectors left Syria.
And then there's the fact that
Obama is due to travel next week and wouldn't want to do it when he was out of
the country.
~~~~~~~~~~
Oh but the words! They are
powerful.
Today, Secretary of State Kerry
said:
"What we saw in Syria last week
should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of
morality...President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who
would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable
people."
Which means....?
~~~~~~~~~~
According to White House spokesman
Jay Carney, "There is very little doubt in our mind that the Syrian regime is
culpable."
While the Times of Israel
reports that, "...both France and the US said they believed the attack involved
chemical warheads and came from regime forces, strengthening the case for
Western military intervention..."
~~~~~~~~~~
This sounded serious in intent,
especially coupled with the fact that the US was increasing its presence in
the Mediterranean with a fourth missile-armed warship.
Credit: sott
net
~~~~~~~~~~
What seemed to increase the
likelihood of US action were reports surfacing about British Prime Minister
Cameron -- who is eager to respond quickly while the outrage is fresh --
pushing Obama to act. Royal Navy vessels were being prepared to take part
in the action in the Mediterranean.
~~~~~~~~~~
Just hours ago, however, Hagel,
traveling in Indonesia, told journalists (emphasis added):
"The United States is looking at all options regarding the situation in
Syria. We're working with our allies and the international community.
"We are analyzing the intelligence. And we will get the facts. And if there is any action taken, it will be concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-hagel-idUSBRE97P0E320130826
How different his tone is in this statement compared to his tone last Friday.
"In concert with the international community" does not mean simply with the British. There's a hedge here, undoubtedly instructed by his boss.
And so, my friends, I would not say an attack is an impossibility. But I would not advise holding your breath.
"We are analyzing the intelligence. And we will get the facts. And if there is any action taken, it will be concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/26/us-syria-crisis-hagel-idUSBRE97P0E320130826
How different his tone is in this statement compared to his tone last Friday.
"In concert with the international community" does not mean simply with the British. There's a hedge here, undoubtedly instructed by his boss.
And so, my friends, I would not say an attack is an impossibility. But I would not advise holding your breath.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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