After chemical weapon reports, will Obama steer clear of Syria?
August 25, 2013 § Leave a comment
Yesterday RT News reported Syrian rebels used chemical weapons against government troops. If this is true, it makes the civil war a much more complex issue.
President Obama met with his national security team to provide him with options for a possible attack. US Naval Commander in the Mediterranean Sea ordered for warships, armed with cruise missiles, to move closer to Syria.
What we do know is that Al Qaedi and Hezbollah is apart of the rebel forces. Already the US has supplied these rebels through the CIA. (This isn’t the first time the US has armed and supplied organizations recognized as terrorist, or explicitly against American interest, or at war with in another country.)
Should America attack, given this new found information, what would be the mission’s objective? Initially a potential attack was to take out Syrian President Bashir al Assad. If the State department or intelligence community acknowledges the use of chemical weapons by the rebels, would they leave the country to rebels? Assuming they wouldn’t leave the country to them, who would decide on the interim government? Would an occupation—another invasion turned occupation in the Middle East—with the said objective to be install democracy, occur? Would America be left to negotiating Syria’s future with Al Qaedi, Hezbollah and other factions of the rebel?
– – –
Though this is all speculation, one should undermine the importance of such questions. They are important nonetheless. Intervening in any conflict, or simply carrying out an offensive attack, should require great debate. Knowing mainstream for what it is, one shouldn’t expect much of debate or substantive discussion.
Both the conservative and liberal ideologies adhere to the same foreign policy. It would be a coordinated, bipartisan effort to intervene, finally supported by the media. Both ideologies adhere to the World America Team Police, that it is America’s duty to intervene in global conflicts. Should he act, he will bypass Congress—and they will do nothing, of course—and sidestep the Constitution. I’ve yet to hear him mention either.
US forces are spread too wide; the presence in North Africa is almost nonexistent if you watch the news. I don’t know why the President, his allies and enemies, and pundits think Americans can afford another conflict. Then what?
How will Americans benefit from the ousting of Assad? What, exactly, are the pre-requisites for an intervention? Would this conflict consitute as “fighting for my country”? For freedoms? What happens if the mission fails and turns into an occupation? How many conflicts does the US have to be involved in? Where will the money come from?
The outrage over the use of chemical weapons is laughable. America supplied Iraq with chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, who then a decade later used them against the native Kurds to the US’s disapproval.
If the rebel forces truly have chemical weapons, this poses a legitimate threat to Israel—not the fear mongering that is usually spread. Organizations hostile to Israel may have the ability to launch a successful chemical attack.
Lastly, if actions fall short of troops on the ground, and a no-fly zone is installed, let it be no mistake that this, too, is surely an act of war.
I invite you to join the conversation and subscribe to Minds Alike or e-mail me at BabAdetiba@gmail.com