Syrian predicament…

Since President Obama threatened to order a 'limited', punishing attack on Syria a few days have passed.  Few days, bringing 24/7 warmongering debate on some TV channels, also a few days with some major international political developments…

Tonight President Obama spoke to the Americans from the White House.  In the very well written, and passionately delivered speech the President tried to make a case for the punishing strike on Basher Al Assad (Syria), as our duty to the Humanity, since the use of the chemical weapons is, and has been condemned even by the countries we usually do not associate with freedoms and respect to the World's Law - like Iran… but as a second option - if the political option fails…

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.  In these short few days since the day when Obama announced to the World his decision to bomb Syria to today, a whole avalanche of events happened:
We first learned about the possibility that the Syrian Army attacked 11 neighborhoods in Syria (near Damascus), defiant to Assad to that point, on August 21.  These locations were places where Syrian rebells lived and which they defended bravely.  These were neighborhoods, unbreakable by conventional weapons to that day.  
During a few next days we learned the whole scope of the attack.  Although the Regime denied the attack claiming that it was a provocation, and actually the rebells did it…  We learned that Sarin gas was used (most likely by Assad, since the delivery methods belonged to the organized army, not the disorganized rebells).
We witnessed the injured gasping for air in the last hours of their lives, since no one could help them at that point.  We saw hundreds, upon hundreds of dead on the floors of the make-shift hospitals…  The doctors complained that in a first few hours they run out of the only medicine which might have helped - atropine, and afterwards they could only watch people die, but couldn't help…

For most of us the Syrian Government's guild is not in question.  After killing more than 100,000 people using conventional weapons, Assad's regime moved to one of the most horrific weapons of ever invented - poisonous gas - Sarin. 

On August 28, US President Obama started making the case for the military strike, which would punish Assad's regime for the use of chemical weapons and prevent him from doing it again.  "I have not made a decision" on Syria military strike - Obama stated, but he added that all the options were on the table and "We have concluded," the president said, that Assad's regime in fact carried these out.  And if that's so, there needs to be international consequences" (5*).

On August 29, British Parliament voted against British involvement in the military intervention in Syria, leaving Prime Minister David Cameron stunned.  On the same day, the Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta said that: "If the United Nations doesn't back it, Italy will not participate…"(1*)

On August 31, President Obama announced that, although he is convinced that the US should attack Syria, he would seek the Congress authorization of that action (6*).

At the beginning of September the so called G20 started, this time in St. Petersburg, Russia.  As expected at the Leaders Summit, one of the main, and the most controversial subject was the War in Syria and the possibility of the military intervention, to which the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin decisively opposes. On September 6, the European indices and the Wall Street took a dive after the Russian President warned to aid Syria, if America attacks militarily. (3*).  "We have our plans…" - Vladimir Putin warned US (4*), and he ordered the military buildup in the East Mediterranean (missile cruiser Moskva).

Although our media didn't emphasize the whole gravity of the situation, Obama's decision to peruse the military option creates a very dangerous situation, not only in the Middle East, but worldwide.  It brings to mind the infamous 13 days in 1962 - known afterwards as "Cuban Missile Crisis".  I do not want to draw parallels too far.  Times are different, the state of the US-Russian affairs is not as bad as it was than.  But it seems like the same game of "chicken" JFK was playing with Nikita Khrushchev (the leader to the USSR at that time).  Game, which was played a few steps too far for comfort...

During the G20 Summit the Syria didn't go out of agenda.  America was trying to get as much support for the attack, aided by French, British (only words, since the Parliament voted it down), Turks.  Russians were strongly opposed, and threatening.  On another front - The UN - on September 5, the US Ambassador to the UN accused Russia to held the UN hostage on the Syrian subject, preventing any resolution of the problem (7*).  Nothing changes - Russians won't give up support to Syria, since it's their only zone of influence in the Middle East, and they desperately want to cling to it.  If Assad is too weak to stay in power, their influence may not last long...

As the Guardian reported on September 9, according to the German Intelligence services: "President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months…"(2*)

On the same day the US Secretary Of State John Kerry presented the ultimatum to the Syrian regime, that they had a week to surrender all the chemical weapons in the whole country, or the US would strike.  Immediately afterwards he appeared very skeptical about the success of such a proposal (8*).  And yet, it seams that President Putin welcomed this idea as one that would help him to keep his hands on this part of the Middle East a bit longer (9*).  Supposedly Assad agreed to that, and he promised to surrender all stash of his chemical weapons to the international community with no reservation.  
No one can imagine how it would be possible to execute, taking under consideration that Syria is in the state of Civil War, there would be an 'army' of international inspectors, and security personnel… At any given time, if the communication, or transportation fail, or there is no cooperation from the regime, or too much of the red tape… the US may strike.  But then the Russian fleet will be in place, at the shores of Syria.
Russian President jumped on the wagon of the almost impossible to perform peace initiative just to play "chicken" more efficiently, to have more 'arguments'.
___________________

This finally brought us back to what I started this article with - Obama's speech in the evening of the September 10.  President postponed the Congressional vote on authorizing the military option, while giving more time to the diplomatic option, coined by Kerry and picked so eagerly by Putin (whatever his intensions might be - and I am sure the World Peace is the last thing he though about).
Obama referred to the populous opposition to the possible military strike, but at the same time our moral obligation toward the Humanity would be to prevent any possibility of Syrian Regime using this kind of weapons again, or proliferation of these weapons in the region or farther, when Assad looses control over the stash.
I agree, that these are legitimate concerns.  I agree that the chemical weapons in the hands of the madman like him or someone like his 'replacement' (if he is to fall) is the very dangerous situation.  I agree with all these arguments.  There is no doubt in my mind that it is a tinder box and the World has to deal with it.

At the same time I am certain, that we can't afford entering this conflict.  I am sure that there is no clean way out of it if we get militarily involved.  The Russians will make sure that we are to blame for all the instability in the region, and loss of life it carries with it.  The loss of life which is unavoidable in any military action.  
Obama planned to use Cruise missiles, stealth bombers, what not.  I can foresee the regime presenting to the international community images of the atrocities caused by the strike.  I can foresee hundreds of the bloody corpses piled up, or layed down evenly on the floor showing 'alleged victims' of the 'imperialist's' attack.
Obama stated:  'It won't be another Irak, nor even Lybia…'.  That's right, it won't be - it will be much worse.  In Libya the World wanted to get rid of the Regime, and Russians didn't have anything to say.  It was too obvious.  Syria is different.  Also, the public opinion in the whole World is weary of war.  The public opinion in the whole World is weary of the American 'trigger happy', self appointed role of the 'fixer' of the World's problems.  
'We have the moral obligation to the Humanity to act…'.  Maybe we do, but every time, someone has to weigh very carefully what we can and what we cannot do.  We know what the wars we have been involved in costed us, financially, morally, in human toll… After so many failed plans of limited involvement, one should ask oneself a question if  the 'limited strike' is at all possible.  
We are not to topple Assad.  OK.  We will hurt him, kill a lot of soldiers, and probably a lot of civilians…  In his last chemical attack he killed around 1500 people.  How many corpses are we going to add to that?  Are we going to be the champions of the Free and Moral World.  Champions against tyranny of the Dictators?  Are we going to be the Champions for the weak and meek of the World?  But these weak and meek of the World want our help only when they start struggling alone against what ails them.  Right after they feel a bit supported they turn agains us.  The history repeats itself over and over.  

Every single time we act as a 'Policeman' of the World, every time when some 'collateral damage' occurs the multiple characters get radicalized, and join our enemies.  We are feeding the hatred.  Let's stop that. 

British Prime Minister had to agree with the voice of the nation when he lost decisively in the the Parliament vote.  There is a very good chance that the Congress of the USA won't authorize the military action against Syria.  But the President of the USA has the power to call for execution of his plan even if the Congress votes against it.  
I only hope that President Obama will not do that.  He did a lot of good things for America already.  He ended the Irak war, finishes the Afganistan war.  He introduced so long overdue healthcare reform (of course not ideal, but workable).  For the first time people can change Insurance without being not covered for the 'preexisting conditions'.  I could multiply the evident achievement of President Obama.  But, he made the issue of the strike against the Assad regime so personal to him, that it looks like he lost perspective…  If his "chicken game" backfires and Russians or anybody else catches our bluff and forces the US to strike we will all suffer.  I do not believe in a possibility of keeping the conflict contained, if we get into it.  And what will be Obama's legacy?  Syrian War (10*).




___________________
1*  -  http://news.yahoo.com/pm-says-italy-not-join-syrian-operation-unless-141415354.html
2*  -  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild
3*  -  http://www.milanofinanza.it/news/dettaglio_news.asp?id=201309061619527359&chkAgenzie=TMFI
4*  -  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/04/putin-warns-military-action-syria
5*  -  http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600534/obama-i-have-not-made-a-decision-on-syria-military-strike/
6*  -  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/31/president-obama-says-us-must-act-on-syria/
7*  -  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/middleeast/new-us-envoy-to-un-strongly-condemns-russia.html?_r=0
8*  -http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/kerry_gives_assad_one_week_to_surrender_chemical_weapons_or_face_attack.html
9*  -  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/10/putin-chemical-weapons-united-nations-obama/2794529/
10* -  LBJ is known as the President who escalated Vietnam - not a revolutionary President who proclaimed the WAR on POVERTY, and introduced many successful social programs

NO - to war on Syria

The Arab Spring bringing down the old and compromised regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and then Libya took all the world by surprise.  And yet, it happened… after the decades of the abuse, the citizens of these countries said: Enough is enough… down with dictators… and the revolution began.
I wrote about it extensively, while it was happening.  I wrote about my (and others') frustration by the American indecision.  
All the promises contained in Obama's speech in Cairo University, kind of faded away, un-addressed in the real life.  
Yes, we helped in Libya.  The French took a lead, leaving us with the support role.  I was happy, that at last Americans do not have to be the Policeman of the World.  To be honest - the Libyan intervention was done in a perfect, limited way, without endangering our troops, and without loosing the face internationally.  
When the Egyptians elected in a democratic way the new President who happened to be one of the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood, we all almost choked… But as many said: FROM HUSSEIN TO JEFFERSON THE ONLY WAY IS THROUGH KHOMEINI (what translates loosely to:  From dictatorship to democracy the only way is through the support of religion).  The history proved that it was the common way of development (Poland in the Nineties, etc).  However, this democratically elected president (who stated previously that would support all multi religious and gender rights) quickly denied his democratic promises and put Egypt on the path to dictatorship and Sharia…  After months of the protests, Morsi's government was deposed by Egyptian Army responding to the populous demand.
And at that point America roared agains this action.  Like all the events of Morsi's abusive presidency didn't happen…  Army is not a good solution, by if they intent to pass the power to the civilian, elected government and stand aside… 

Syria.  The civil war in this Middle Eastern country exceeded our worst fears.  It's been already 2 years of the conflict.  In first months the whole world was shocked and disgusted by the indiscriminating killing performed by Assad regime, claiming fighting with terrorists…  The daily death toll was rising to more than a hundred a day…
It's September 2013.  By now Assad killed more than a hundred thousand people.  Not the army, or rebel fighters.  He has been decimating the whole neighborhoods, cities, indiscriminately shelling and with artillery, tanks, shooting from air…  
For two years Obama set quiet and America did nothing but the insignificant UN protests.  There were the congressional debates, plenty of White House rhetoric about how bad it was in Syria, and that it should stop immediately, and nothing real was coming out of it.  

For quite some time the rebels were bringing reports of the use of the chemical weapons on the population in Syria.  The White House rhetoric started to be more harsh and aggressive… President Obama started to 'draw a red line', which if crossed would result in the American military action.  
In the resent weeks Assad regime indeed used the Chemical Weapons - they gassed about 1500 cyvilians with Sarin gas.  The UN inspectors went to Syria and gathered evidence, but before they brought it back, the Obama Administration announced to have enough evidence to authorize a strike against the Syrian-Assad assets with a limited missile attack.  

More than a hundred thousand casualties by the conventional weapons was not enough, and didn't push out Administration even to arming the rebels - before they got fragmented and infested with Alkaeda. 

The Russians supported Assad  since the inception of his father.  He assured their access to the Middle East and together with Iran created a strong counterweight to the Western influence.  This fact alone creates the situation, in which Syria is a tinder box, and one has to very careful with fire around it...

And yet, Obama is pushing for a military, limited missile strike.  After days of empty rhetorics and threads, and after the British, and Italians refused to be part of the coalition in the war agains Syria, suddenly the President asks the Congress for the authorization of the strike.  I am not a constitutional lawyer (he actually is), but I know that this is not the proper order of things.  
The Congressional approval or disapproval should precede any form of actual action, and flexing of our military muscle.
Sent by the hasty decision of the President, there are already several US Navy ships armed with Cruise missiles ready to fire, at the shores of Syria.  
In our TV news channels, like CNN the nation is bombarded by the reheated Domino Effect Theory (introduced by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954 in the context of Vietnam and the Indochina in general).  It's pathetic and repulsive that the theory which didn't work in Vietnam is brought as an argument now in the context of Syria.  
We should have learned that Vietnam war destroyed our credence in the World, but didn't bring anything positive in return.  We lost 58K troops and we lost a face at the same time.
None of other wars which we launched left and right hasn't brought anything beyond the exhaustion, economical crisis, and total hatred of the World.  

Beside that point, all the wars have already proven that there has been no such thing, like a limited conflict.  Going to Syria in any capacity we open a Pandora's box.  It's easy to win the war with a inferior army of a Third World country.  It took us 2 months to 'finish'  Saddam… And then, 10 years later the war is still on and we quietly leave the mess behind us.  

I read on the subject, from the various sources.  No one ever concluded, that any military action now (not 2 years ago, which might have been successful) would bring any positive, and long lasting effects.  We simply missed our window of opportunity.
Now we can sit and watch - maybe supporting the 'chosen' rebels with weapons and supplies… 

We can't take out the Assad regime, because the void would be even more dangerous.
We can't bomb the chemical weapons themselves, because the contamination would be like a chemical attack itself.
We can take out some delivery systems (the key word is "some").
We can take out his air force (not helicopters) and air strips, and this will make him just angry…
So, why doing so?  Just to make sure that the President's words are not in vain ? - it is just plain stupid.  He shouldn't make this threat at the first place.

We brake it - we buy it…  It may be our war for the rest of our days.