By Robin G. Jordan
On Monday President Obama is launching a media blitz to sell the US public on his proposed military strike against Syria. He is taking his case to the American people—a tactic that he has used in the past when the US Congress has shown reluctance to support his proposals. He is hoping that the American people will then pressure the US Congress into going along with the military strike. To make his case President Obama will, in addition to the talking points that he and his advisors have been developing over the past few days, be relying on his personal charisma and rhetorical skills that have served him so well in the past.
If things go as President Obama hopes, he will sway enough people to create the kind of critical mass needed to mount pressure on the US Congress to give him what he wants. He does not need the full support of the American people, just enough folks to persuade their senator or representative to vote in favor of the military strike.
As I have waded my way through the news reports, opinion pieces, and other articles related to the Syria crisis this week, a number of things have stood out.
The Obama administration through its intelligence gathering agencies knew that the Assad regime was using chemical weapons against the Syrian rebels but waited until the regime’s use of these weapons produced enough casualties to the point where they could justify in their own minds (and they hoped to the US Congress and the American people) a military strike against Syria. This strikes me as both cynical and opportunistic.
Since President Obama proposed a military strike against Syria, that operation has expanded in its scope—more targets, deployment of more assets, and so forth. This entails the use of more special forces in Syria itself to guide bombs and missiles to their targets. It means “boots on the ground”—not in large formations but nonetheless it involves US troops operating in Syria.
The Pentagon has announced that it will take over from the CIA responsibility for training Syrian rebel fighters. This entails the use of military advisors. It also means “boots on the ground.”
The United States’ involvement in Vietnam began with military advisors. These military advisors later became full combat units.
President Obama’s proposal calls for knocking out Assad’s chemical warfare assets with bombs and missiles. Assad most likely has dispersed these assets in anticipation of the military strike. This means that that some assets most likely have been moved into populated areas. This increases the likelihood of collateral damage to the civilian population not only from the explosion of bombs and missiles but also from the release of chemical warfare agents. While some explosions may burn up these agents, others will vaporize and spread the agents. The resulting number of casualties may be much greater than any Assad’s use of chemical weapons has produced.
Secretary of State Kerry has in a number of statements minimized the threat of Islamic extremist takeover in Syria. This appears to be one of the talking points of the Obama administration in support of a military strike against Syria. Kerry has gone as far as suggest that the Islamic extremists would benefit from non-action on the part of the United States. Logically, however, the Islamic extremists who have shown themselves to be the most effective of the Syrian rebel fighters are more likely to benefit from a US degradation of Assad’s military assets. It would weaken Assad’s forces and even throw them into disarray. The Islamic extremists could take full advantage of these circumstances.
Both President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry argue that a military strike against Syria is necessary to deter not only the future use of chemical weapons by Syria and other countries but also to discourage Iran and North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. The deterrent value of the proposed strike, however, is questionable. If anything it will only prompted other countries to be more secretive in their development of chemical and nuclear weapons. By studying the strike they will also learn how to better conceal and protect these assets.
Should the US Congress approve a military strike against Syria, past experience shows that there is a very real likelihood of this operation escalating into something else, something on a much larger scale. The United States may find itself dragged into a war that it could have very easily avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment