Why Obama’s
proposed military strike against the government of Assad is likely to make a
bad situation worse
President
Barack Obama’s decision on a military strike against Syria demonstrates the
triumph of politics over policy, fear over reason and tactics over strategy.
Obama had drawn a red line on the use of chemical weapons.
The
government of Bashar Al-Assad, if American intelligence is to be believed, has
crossed that line. Can Obama allow Assad to call his bluff? It is very possible
that Obama is acting to protect his and America’s credibility so as not to
appear weak.
In
international relations, power is both myth and reality. But the myth is always
more important than the reality. When others perceive you to be strong, they
shape their behavior towards you in line with that perception. Should you
exhibit weakness, it will be a signal for them to disregard your demands.
From this
perspective therefore, it is understandable why Obama had to honour his word.
But it also shows that it is Obama’s loose rhetoric, not policy or strategy,
and not even American national interest that have committed him to intervene in
Syria.
What is the
strategic objective of the proposed military strike? What is the outcome
against which to measure success? Is the action merely punitive i.e. limited to
punishing the Assad government with cruise missile strikes but not overthrowing
it? What would such token action achieve? Will it stop Assad from using
chemical weapons again? What if it does not?
The effective
response would be to bomb Assad out of power. Indeed, this would also be the
logical end if military strikes do not alter Assad’s behavior. However, if Assad
is toppled, it will create a vacuum in an already volatile country.
Currently,
the most effective and best-organised armed group to seize power in the event
Assad’s government collapses is a collection of radical Islamic militants
allied to Al Qaeda. Is this the alternative to Assad’s control of chemical
weapons that America is looking for?
To avoid
chemical weapons falling into the hands of these groups, America’s military
strike would have to be effective enough to destroy every nook and cranny where
they are hidden.
However, most
military experts on Syria say the regime has been dispersing them across the
country, making it difficult for any set of military strikes, however well
targeted, to destroy all of them.
This means
that a military strike would either leave a weakened, desperate, paranoid
government increasingly gravitating toward extremism still holding on to
chemical weapons or cause it to fall in circumstances where the confederates of
Al Qaeda get their fingers on them.
Therefore,
the best option for Obama is to actually send in American troops on the ground
to secure chemical weapons’ sites. America would then have to establish a
military occupation as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It would have
to choose a successor government and commit itself to fighting an inevitable
civil war whose end would be unclear. Yet Obama has ruled out this option
because he has been critical of such open-ended commitments.
Obama has
done everything (and worse) on Syria which he criticised George Bush of doing
on Iraq. He has decided on a military strike based on intelligence he has
neither shared with allies nor with other global players like Russia.
He has
ignored the UN Security Council in favour of unilateral action. He is
committing US treasure in a conflict where there is no clear American interest
at stake. Finally the US does not even have a “coalition of the willing” like
Bush had and its poodle, Britain, has opted out of the war.
Of course
intervention is understandable from a moral perspective. It may be dangerous
for the world to watch a government use chemical weapons against its citizens
and get away with it. But this moral justification is hypocritical.
There are
many regimes doing bad things or even worse to their citizens than Syria and
some of them are being supported by America. Therefore, this holier-than-thou
attitude of the West can only be bought by the uninitiated. And if the issue is
of international law, then Obama should seek the approval of the UN Security
Council, which he has ruled out.
It is
possible that Obama is betting on no intervention. A sign of this was his
decision to seek congressional approval for the military strike. If congress
refuses as the UK parliament did, it will have provided Obama with some
face-saving exit out of his red line threats. Yet the US president has already
said that although he will seek Congressional approval, he does not actually
need it.
He made it
clear that he has already made the decision on a military strike and that it can
happen “tomorrow or next week.” So what is Congressional approval for if he has
already decided?
Obama’s
blunders in Syria are actually a failure of imagination. There is a path to a
solution although difficult to craft. It is seeking a political settlement to
Syria’s intractable armed conflict.
I am not a
fan of internationally negotiated peace agreements because they rarely work.
But Syria is worth a try because both sides seem to have fought themselves to a
stalemate. It is therefore possible that the warring factions can find some
form of political accommodation more attractive than continued combat.
America and
her allies need to begin looking at Iran, China and Russia, not as spoilers,
but as strategic allies. America needs to understand the fears and temptations
of these stakeholders, rather than pursue its own vision in Syria.
What is
driving their policy? How can their interests be reconciled with those of
America and her allies? Russia and Iran seem to have a close relationship with
the Syrian government. They can persuade Assad to accept a deal.
America can
also persuade her confederates in Syria’s opposition to do the same. This will
isolate forces allied to Al Qaeda. So far, Obama has been demonising Russia and
Iran.
Yet he is the
same man who promised during his 2008 campaign that he would seek to work with
others. In demonising Russia and Iran, he has made himself part of the problem
rather than part of a solution.
amwenda@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment