Syria’s Assad must be taught a lesson
Action is warranted not out of choice, but out of necessity.
The writer has a master’s degree in Security and Intelligence Studies from the University of Pittsburgh. He works on the Peshawar desk of The Express Tribune
Many observers may view the US intervention in Syria as being potentially undertaken on moral grounds, but this is purely based on interests of not allowing any state to employ chemical weapons with impunity. State or non-state actor(s), who think they can get away with it, should and must to be brought to justice.
The potential US intervention in Syria is not aimed at occupation. It has been clearly stated and reiterated that there will be no boots on the ground. Its primary aim, judging from US President Barack Obama’s recent interview and Secretary John Kerry’s testimony in Congress, is to change regime behaviour, not regime replacement. The Obama Administration and the international community seem to acknowledge, or at least grasp the idea that there are no immediate alternatives to the Bashar al-Assad regime at this time.
The rebels and the Free Syria Movement remain immature and much infighting is yet to come within them, as is most often the case with revolutionary movements. In addition, the al Qaeda and extremist threat looms over as the Syrian crisis unfolds and the international community would be uneasy to see such elements filling the power vacuum.
Assad, on the other hand, seems to be walking down the same path as Saddam Hussein in his stubbornness to yield and stop the senseless violence and atrocities he is committing against his citizens.
The recent switch from military action to diplomacy, however, was a pathetic cop-out by the Obama Administration, which will only embolden rogue states like Syria, Iran and their Russian backers. Forming a framework to seize and destroy Assad’s chemical stockpile by mid-2014 will only buy his regime more time to conceal and stash some of the weapons while giving up others. The Russians cannot be fully trusted to making good on their word either.
Use of chemical weapons warrants military action to re-establish a ‘red line’ that no state will be allowed to employ such deadly weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with impunity. Action is warranted not out of choice, but out of necessity.
As for those arguing that a strike on Assad is aimed at addressing Israel’s insecurity, this may be more of a secondary concern. The primary aim is to counter the threat from WMDs. Unlike Iraq, where intelligence was manipulated and politicised as a vehicle for invasion, evidence exists this time around on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and has been corroborated by the UN Secretary General.
US air strikes against Assad’s regime will most certainly be geared towards influencing Iran, however, the US, with or without its allies, will impart similar treatment against Iran if it continues to pursue its ambition of acquiring nuclear weapons.
There are no guarantees that the expected outcome will be achieved. There can never be. That is just the nature of international security. But President Obama’s decision to gain congressional approval for air strikes has complicated and delayed the necessary action. It has also surely sparked a constitutional debate on the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature and over the US president’s authority to declare war. Obama is realising that he won’t find any friends among the Republican leadership or liberal Democrats even on national security issues.
The public must not only consider the costs and fallout of an aggressive action, but also the consequences of inaction.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 19th, 2013.
The potential US intervention in Syria is not aimed at occupation. It has been clearly stated and reiterated that there will be no boots on the ground. Its primary aim, judging from US President Barack Obama’s recent interview and Secretary John Kerry’s testimony in Congress, is to change regime behaviour, not regime replacement. The Obama Administration and the international community seem to acknowledge, or at least grasp the idea that there are no immediate alternatives to the Bashar al-Assad regime at this time.
The rebels and the Free Syria Movement remain immature and much infighting is yet to come within them, as is most often the case with revolutionary movements. In addition, the al Qaeda and extremist threat looms over as the Syrian crisis unfolds and the international community would be uneasy to see such elements filling the power vacuum.
Assad, on the other hand, seems to be walking down the same path as Saddam Hussein in his stubbornness to yield and stop the senseless violence and atrocities he is committing against his citizens.
The recent switch from military action to diplomacy, however, was a pathetic cop-out by the Obama Administration, which will only embolden rogue states like Syria, Iran and their Russian backers. Forming a framework to seize and destroy Assad’s chemical stockpile by mid-2014 will only buy his regime more time to conceal and stash some of the weapons while giving up others. The Russians cannot be fully trusted to making good on their word either.
Use of chemical weapons warrants military action to re-establish a ‘red line’ that no state will be allowed to employ such deadly weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with impunity. Action is warranted not out of choice, but out of necessity.
As for those arguing that a strike on Assad is aimed at addressing Israel’s insecurity, this may be more of a secondary concern. The primary aim is to counter the threat from WMDs. Unlike Iraq, where intelligence was manipulated and politicised as a vehicle for invasion, evidence exists this time around on the use of chemical weapons in Syria and has been corroborated by the UN Secretary General.
US air strikes against Assad’s regime will most certainly be geared towards influencing Iran, however, the US, with or without its allies, will impart similar treatment against Iran if it continues to pursue its ambition of acquiring nuclear weapons.
There are no guarantees that the expected outcome will be achieved. There can never be. That is just the nature of international security. But President Obama’s decision to gain congressional approval for air strikes has complicated and delayed the necessary action. It has also surely sparked a constitutional debate on the separation of powers between the executive and the legislature and over the US president’s authority to declare war. Obama is realising that he won’t find any friends among the Republican leadership or liberal Democrats even on national security issues.
The public must not only consider the costs and fallout of an aggressive action, but also the consequences of inaction.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 19th, 2013.