"But neither Obama nor Kerry has been able to explain how any, even limited, use of military force against Syria can help bring about the political resolution that they claim to seek. Indeed, if the United States does use military force against Syria, there is good reason to expect further rounds of retaliation and escalation — by the Syrians themselves or any of the many other factions and regional interests involved there — in a continuing spiral of violence that could consume the whole region and pose a grave threat to global peace. Several commentators have argued that the link between a U.S. military strike and a potential negotiation is that the strike would weaken Assad in order to force him to the table. But Assad’s regime is not the party that has refused the negotiating table. The Russians have secured his agreement to participate in the negotiations called for at the Geneva I peace conference for Syria in June 2012, which is also the basis for the now long-delayed convening of a Geneva II. But meanwhile, just about every one of the myriad branches of the Syrian opposition has refused to participate in any negotiation in which the Assad government is also represented. They argue that Assad has to leave power before any negotiations can start. In fact, from August 2011 until recently, Washington backed the intransigent stance of the Syrian opposition. In recent months, that position seems to have eased a little — though in his Aug. 31 speech, Obama still insisted on continuing to put “pressure on the Assad regime” and to maintain “our commitment to the opposition.” Washington has continued to aid parties in the Syrian opposition that remain intent on overthrowing Assad, without ever conditioning that aid on the recipients’ taking part in the peace talks. The Obama administration also assumes that limited military strikes against Syria would weaken Assad. But there is good reason to believe they would actually strengthen his political support among Syrians and others, and stiffen his resolve. The precedents most frequently cited by proponents of U.S. military action in Syria have been the punitive strikes the Clinton administration launched against the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. But it would be simplistic to think the Syrian crisis is comparable to that situation. Syria has plunged into an all-out civil war with many parties and regional interests competing. Its complexity dwarfs the simple outrages of Slobodan Milosevic’s one-sided extermination campaign against Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Kosovo."
Posted on: Sat, 07 Sep 2013 00:47:49 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015