Many are failing to realise that the US military actions in Syria will be different from those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The rhetoric has changed. It will no longer be about “the world’s largest democracy fighting a war on terror to free innocent people from oppressive regimes.”
Putting aside conspiracy theories or concerns about American world dominance, these impending American air strikes are more about sending a message that the US should still be taken seriously in the Middle East. President Obama says he wants to execute “limited” military strikes to punish the Syrian regime for chemical weapon (CW) usage and to deter Assad from resorting to CW in future. The rhetoric is about telling a regime that it will face harsh repercussions if it dares to cross the red line which the US has set.
In his speech on August 31, President Obama made it clear that there will not be any American troops on Syrian soil and that the military actions will be “limited in duration and scope.” Moreover, he laid out his main goals: to hold the Assad regime accountable, and to deter and to reduce Syria’s capacity to use CW to ensure safety of US allies around Syria. There is also clearly a hope that Assad may be forced to step down on his own, which the US certainly wants as it is continuing to give limited support to the Free Syrian Army.
What is President Obama trying to achieve?
I do not think Obama wants a full-scale war in Syria, not least because of the risks of escalation. The American economy is weak and US citizens are strongly against another billion dollar war that could both hurt the economy and take American lives. Besides, it strongly goes against his own election campaign promise. If he really wanted a war as many in the Muslim world are claiming, he, for quite a long time, has had the excuse of “100,000 Syrian lives wasted” to enter Syria on humanitarian grounds to overthrow Assad.
President Obama is trying to establish himself as a man of his word as he himself set a red line which Assad appears to have crossed. Otherwise, this may encourage Syria’s ally, Iran, America’s principal foe in the Middle East, to carry on with its own nuclear programme, something the US and its allies have been trying to stop for a long time.
In fact, I personally feel “inducing fear in Iran” is the principal implicit purpose of the planned strikes.
With the recent turn of events in Egypt, many political analysts fear that US influence in the Middle East is waning. The Obama Administration is trying its best to not term the ouster of Morsi as a military coup and is continuing to aid the Egyptian military to protect the little leverage the US, along with important neighbours Israel, has left. Perhaps, these air strikes are meant to regain some of its lost influence.
Besides, Russian influence in the Middle East is also growing with close ties to the Syrian regime and Iranian government. Perhaps, these air strikes are indirectly intended to put a halt to that too, as Russia-US relations have deteriorated in recent years.
For the time being Putin has ordered two war-ships to be stationed in the Mediterranean to perhaps create doubt in Obama’s mind. After all, Russia benefits a lot, both strategically and economically, from its ties with the Assad regime.
Of course, it is possible to reason that the US is trying to change the tide in Syria. However, it has already missed the favorable moment when Assad’s forces were at their weakest and the rebels were at their strongest.
Washington is still appears confused from the thought of seeing either Assad or Sunni fundamentalists in power in Syria. Al-Qaeda is already part of the fight against Assad and the American government wouldn’t want to see American supplied arms or Syrian chemical weapon stocks ending in the hands of such Sunni fundamentalist elements.
What can go wrong
Plenty of things could go wrong with these strikes. However “surgical,” they could still cost hundreds of civilian lives in Syria, leading to more anti-American sentiment in the region and world at large.
Moreover, analysts fear the Assad regime may be strong enough to withstand limited strikes and still continue its war against the rebels. In such a case, any American action may only have marginal impact and could perhaps incite Assad to use more violent tactics.
Moreover, anti-war sentiment in the US may be strengthened and support for the rebels within Syria reduced. Worse still, Syria and organizations like Hezbollah could strongly retaliate by launching counter attacks on US allies in the region like Israel and important members of the Arab League.
As a result, US actions could back-fire and suck more nations into turmoil, leading to an increased possibility of a full-fledged invasion.
Conclusion
President Obama’s implicit interest in Syria is more than just about holding the Assad regime accountable and to ensure the safety of neighbouring allies. It may well be about increasing the American influence in Middle Eastern politics and putting a check on growing Iranian and Russian influence in the region.
However, the Obama administration still has a lot to do before launching military operations. President Obama will have to show that his actions are “limited in duration and scope,” and will ensure Assad’s accountability and not harm the safety of US allies.
Obama will have to convince both Americans and the rest of the world that his missile strikes wouldn’t be upgraded to indefinite drone strikes and “on-foot” expeditions or that violence would not escalate in Syria following US actions.
Most importantly, he may still have to do more to convince his own citizens and Congress that Assad’s regime was directly behind the August 21 attacks and the situation is dire enough to justify immediate US action.
