I thought perhaps I would not post
again about Syria until something actually happened, or until the whole shebang
was called off.
But I've thrown up my hands with
incredulity. And now I've decided to make a few comments.
What I find most incredible is how
President Obama is behaving. Since when is it proper form for a head of
state to go on television and discuss a hostile military action he's thinking of
taking, complete with multiple details?
This may come as something of a
shock to him, but a president is supposed to make decisions, not just
waffle. Those decisions should be made quietly in consultation with
appropriate decision-makers within the country -- Secretary of Defense, leaders
in Congress, etc. Then, as has been decided, action should be taken, after
which public explanations of what is being done and why it is being done are
very much in order.
Methinks he has it
backwards.
~~~~~~~~~~
The rumors are flying so thick and
fast it's impossible to keep track of all of them, never mind account for
them.
As of today, it was still not
certain that a final decision has been made regarding an attack on Syria.
We keep hearing that the president is waiting for more information. The
problem, we're being told, is that it is certain that the Syrian government
launched the gas attack, but there is no concrete evidence tying
it directly to Assad. Does this mean that the government has to be
given a free pass if it cannot be proven that Assad himself gave the
order?
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, it had occurred to me that
it's possible Obama has made his decision, and that his apparent indecision is
simply a ruse, to throw the Syrian government off guard. But
I've rejected this. First, because that sort of decisiveness is not Obama's
MO. And then because Syria is preparing for the eventuality of an attack (even
if it is not a certainty). Damascus has been pretty much shut
down.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tonight a White House spokesman
said that the final decision would be made (note: "would be") on the basis of
national security interests. That's the way national decisions are
routinely made. But this opens the door to a closer look at precisely why
the US will bomb Syria, if indeed that is going to happen.
There has been a huge amount of
talk about the immorality, as well as the illegality, of using gas as a
weapon. And it has been both suggested and said overtly that this is
why Assad has to be weakened -- so he gets the message that he cannot use gas
again. Sec. of State Kerry's very emotional declaration about the
inhumanity of what has been done resonated with a great many people. And I
don't think that's bad. Nor do I think it bad if a coalition of nations
moves to act where there is conclusive evidence of such inhumanity.
But...but...is stopping Assad from
using gas as a weapon against his own people in the American national
interest? If this is so, the connection is more than a bit vague.
One might argue that a host of potential enemies of the Western world would be
less inclined to consider use of such weapons, if they understood that there
would be swift repercussions. A stretch, but OK.
If the cache of weapons of mass
destruction -- gas, biological agents, etc. -- were to be secured, so that they
could not be accessed by jihadist rebels in Syria, that would be more
clearly in America's national interest. For such jihadists would
eagerly use such weapons against Americans. But this is not the
case. This would require "boots on the ground" -- actually, a
whole lot of boots. And Obama has insisted he will not go this
route.
~~~~~~~~~~
It has been pointed out that
action against Assad does not have the goal of saving innocent Syrian
lives. And unquestionably, this is the case. Over 100,000 Syrians
have died in the last two years in the civil war. The perhaps 1,000 and
perhaps fewer who died from the gas attack pales in comparison in terms of
absolute numbers. And. as there is no intention of taking his regime down,
Assad apparently has carte blanche to continue killing his people as long as he
doesn't use gas.
My own perspective is that --
while indeed this is the ugly truth -- a stand again non-conventional weapons
has its own merit. Not everyone would agree.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are those warning that even
though Obama speaks of a limited action, it could get out of hand. If
Assad's regime falls and al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels gain ascendancy, is that in
America's best interest? I would argue not.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, what is in the US's national
interest here? Re-establishing deterrence power. Obama made his
statement about a red line on gas. He comes across as a powerless fool if
he doesn't act, having said this. The world is an incredibly dangerous
place (something I hardly need point out). If the president of the US
says that such and such will not be tolerated, it is important that he be taken
seriously. Need I point out that everyone's eye is on Iran in this
regard?
~~~~~~~~~~
What has surprised me is the way
in which British PM Cameron has pulled back. He seemed -- I suspect he is
-- more resolute than Obama.
Credit: flash
90
But he is getting enormous
domestic resistance because of Iraq, and today he told Parliament that, "It
would be unthinkable to proceed if there was overwhelming opposition in the
Security Council." Does he consider the opposition of Russia and
China to be "overwhelming"? Never mind the Security Council: Without
parliamentary backing, he will not proceed. He is not being supported by
either the Labor or the Independence party and has decided to delay a decision
on action.
As I understand it, the British do
have Tomahawk missile-bearing submarines in the Mediterranean.
~~~~~~~~~~
Earlier today,
the (Russian) Interfax news agency reported that Russia was sending
two warships to the eastern Mediterranean -- citing someone in
the armed forces' general staff, who said the ships were a missile
cruiser and an anti-submarine ship, which would arrive in the next few days
because of the "well-known situation."
While no one imagined that Russia
was about to attack the American vessels in the area, this move caused a bit of
unease. But, according to YNet, the Russian navy subsequently said this
had nothing to do with the Syrian situation, but was part of a
long-planned rotation of its ships in the Mediterranean.
~~~~~~~~~~
French President Francois Hollande
still seems to be on board for military action on Syria. He is looking for a
political solution but said this wouldn't be possible until there was some
limited military action: "We will only manage this if the international
community can put a temporary stop to this escalation in violence, of which the
chemical attack is just one example."
It would seem that his goals are
broader than Obama's. And it should be noted that he is more solidly supportive
of the rebels.
France has dispatched an anti-air
warfare frigate to the eastern Mediterranean, according to La Pointe magazine,
cited by France24.
~~~~~~~~~~
The US now has a fifth ship in the
Mediterranean: The USS Stout, a guided missile destroyer, which is currently
headed east. According to a navy official, it was supposed to relieve the
USS Mahan, but both ships might stay in the region for now. Something to
be watched.
~~~~~~~~~~
From US Ambassador to Israel Dan
Shapiro, speaking on radio today, we had this (emphasis added):
"...President Obama has not
yet decided exactly how we will respond to the use of chemical weapons, but
there will be a strong and serious reaction because we, as well
as the Arab League states, Muslim nations, and NATO members agree that the this
is a very serious situation, in which the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons
extensively against civilians, against women, against children – this is
unacceptable and there must be a response."
Note his allusion to Arab League,
and Muslim states, as well as NATO members. They are not on board for
participating in the attack, but at some level or another support such an
attack. From the perspective of the US, invoking this support, which lends the
aura of a large coalition, is important.
~~~~~~~~~~
It was announced today that the UN
inspection team that was supposed to pull out next week is, instead, leaving on
Saturday.
The fact that the team's departure
was pushed up suggests that an attack, if it comes, is likely
imminent.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
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