The writer is an Islamabad-based TV journalist and tweets @FarrukhKPitafi
Again, keen as we are to compare the Iraq invasion with the impending strike in Syria, just as no two fingers are alike, we know the difference. Syria is not Iraq, the Obama Administration is not the Bush Administration and Democrats are not neocons. This time, at least, an unconcerned Pakistani like me is eager to believe that if the US plans to go ahead with a surgical strike, it must have some good reasons to do so. Unipolarity is the closest one can get to the ideal of collective security and make no mistakes, the world still is a unipolar place.
But while unipolarity in good hands can prove to be a good thing, unilateralism most definitely is not. In one aspect that the Iraq invasion and the Syrian assault are similar is the isolation the US has to endure on the world stage. If anything, isolation has grown further. After the fiasco in Iraq, Washington has only lost trust of the world leaders further. If it has to be a moral leader, it will have to rebuild this trust again. If the US can come up with irrefutable evidence of the regime’s chemical attack even after a strike, it most definitely will win back a lot of credibility. However, if it fails again, trust me, next time when it has to go ahead with a perfectly rational action abroad, its own Congress may not show enough faith.
That said, it must also be pointed out that the current US position on Syria seems principled if viewed in isolation with its position on Saudi Arabia, Israel and recently, on Egypt. The three examples given here make a case that the US desire to attack Syria is not motivated by the concerns of collective security but the wish to preserve balance of power in its favour. If proven correct, this is not the perfect image of the world’s lone policeman. The fact is that the US can strike Syria without any evidence because it has the muscle and no serious challenger. But that will be akin to pulling the unipolar system down from within. If a US strike against Syria ends up being viewed as aggression without justification, this will offer two incentives for a multipolar world. First, an overstretched America may turn out to be a tarnished, weakened policeman. Does Paul Kennedy’s imperial overreach ring a bell? Second, since there are too many variables, this can end up igniting a new conflict that may polarise and radicalise the world as never before.
After spelling out all these caveats, I think I should mention here that if there is actionable evidence in Syria’s case, the world will eventually side with the US. The truth is we are often unfairly critical of American power. On one side, we criticise it for doing nothing to preserve democracy in Egypt. On the other, we throw verbal tantrums when it chooses to do something somewhere. A government gassing its own people is simply not acceptable. It is only that as the only power that ever used nuclear weapons in a strike that killed countless civilians, albeit in a world war, the US should ensure that its nose is clean in its other conflicts.
And finally, while a strike on Syria may resolve some issues in the region it is essential to remember that the Syrian situation is just a symptom. The real problem lies with three states — Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (7)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
The Tribune really pulling out all the stops in trying to sell the American invasion of Syria...
This is prob that first and only ill agree with anything the author writes, because its also the first time I have come across a nuanced analysis on what actually is going on in Syria by a Pakistani. Firstly he has correctly stated that Syria is not Iraq. Iraq didn't have 100,000 people dead and millions displaced as refugees by the time US invaded it. Secondly unlike Iraq the sovereignty argument cannot uphold in Syria, since Bashar decided to invite Iran and Hezbollah directly into conflict through weapons and fighters. Thirdly, its unfair to say every international intervention leads to Syria while forgetting in cases of Bosnia and Kosovo, the intervention was quiet necessary in putting an end to atrocities being perpetuated on innocent civilians. It would have been interesting if the author mulled more on the negative roles played by other regional countries, as well. People like to harp on and on about the US which has admittedly played a contradictory and problematic role, but then their are countries like Iran and Israel, who are quietly stirring the pot in different countries. Just like Iran used the chaos in Iraq to mould a government in its favors, its now doing the same in Syria and Lebanon by allowing the chaos to escalate and preventing any peaceful outcome, so to maintain its hold on the proxies all the costs of people. In the end if the Syria mess is not sorted out sooner, the outcome is predicted to be alot worse, people are deluded if they think things can go back to normal with Bashar still on top. After all this bloodshed Iran and Russia need to wake up and realise that before there is retaliation against their countries, its better for Bashar to go and allow for a more inclusive new government that the people have been protesting for to take shape.
The real problem lies with the USA,Israel and Saudi Arabia who want to shape the ME according to their interests. Iran policies are reactionary in nature.
The author should have elaborated the last sentence regarding Iran/Saudi Arabia and Israel's power politics. It seemed that either the author had not mulled over what he wrote or lacked the courage to speak the truth. Don't you think that the role of Iran of Raza Pehalvi is being performed by Saudi Arabia?
The author has not done justice to the topic except a passing reference in the last sentence regarding Iran / Saud Arabia / Israel's compulsions of power politics which actually is the core issue. Atrocities of Asad regime are just a tactical prop for Syrian invasion whereas the strategy is much deeper.