Monday 2 September 2013

Intervention in Syria would only further erode the credibility of the West

As David Cameron is reeling after his defeat in the House of Commons, Nick Clegg has accused Labour of not respecting the gravity of the situation in Syria. But the issue is not whether or not the situation is serious - everyone agrees that Syria is a disaster. The question is whether an intervention would improve the situation.

As Simon Jenkins has pointed out in the Guardian, it is unclear what the objective of a miltary intervention in Syria would be. Obama's plan which Cameron failed to sell to House of Commons seems to be "punish" the Assad regime for its use of chemical weapons with a bombing campaign which would inevitably hurt the Syrian population far more than the government. Jenkins believes the West doesn't have the political will to try to topple Assad, in which case the intervention would do nothing but inevitably kill dozens or perhaps hundreds of civilians. Aerial bombardment would be futile.

But Jenkins also seems to imply that toppling Assad would be a better option, concluding, "if the west really wants to "save Syria" it should go in and save it. Otherwise shut up." At least there would be a clear objective, but as in the case of Iraq the it is far from clear who would take over.

A ground invasion of troops could rapidly take Damascus and oust the Assad regime, although they wouldn't be seen as "liberators" by the considerable proportion of the population who still support him. Christians make up about 10% of the Syrian population and many continue to back Assad out of fear that an Islamic government would persecute them. The Free Syria Army remains fragmented, rudderless and guilty of its own atrocities and abuses. A bombing campaign would achieve little, but a full scale intervention would be far more problematic, with troops potentially bogged down for years and the country descending further into civil war. Attacking Assad's forces and arming the opposition would only make sense if there is a coherent group ready to take power. This simply is not the case in Syria.

The Obama administration claims that the Assad regime has crossed a "red line" in its usage of chemical warfare. But as Murtaza Hussain has observed on Aljazeera, there have already been 14 recorded uses of chemical weapons and more than 100 000 Syrians have been killed - why is Washington suddenly so interested in this one attack? By talking tough about a "red line" Obama has pushed himself into a corner - it would look weak not to act now. The proposal to intervene in Syria has more to do with saving face than principles of democracy or human rights.

Russian president Vladimir Putin has questioned the "proof" that chemical weapons have been used. Given that the WMDs in Iraq never showed up it is reasonable to be sceptical. After all, in the cases of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden the Obama administration has shown a total disregard of true information supposedly on the grounds of national security. And now we're supposed to believe that information regarding usage of chemical weapons hasn't been fabricated to further its national interests.

A military intervention in Syria would do nothing to improve the situation and would only further weaken Washington's international standing and credibility. Meanwhile China is playing the long game, keeping out of the conflict and watching Obama adminsitration expose its double standards.











No comments:

Post a Comment