President Obama and some US allies are now accusing President Assad of using chemical weapons against his citizens without showing any evidence to shape the view of the American people and as a pretext to intervene with military action against the Assad regime. We all know that in a war civilians will die; furthermore, American intervention may turn a regional multipolar war into truly international escalation. President Obama announced on Saturday that he has decided to launch a military strike against Syria, but wants Congress to authorize it. “After careful deliberation, I have decided that United States should take military action against the Syrian regime,” he said. He is ready to give the order. “I am the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy, “ President Obama said. “I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.
What if Congress does not authorize American use of force against Syria? Why does Turkey not want to be involved militarily? Why would America want to become involved militarily in another mess in the region? How will a war help American national interests? Obama should explain to the American people why America should fight. Who is America helping? Does President Obama even have a clear sense of who the Syrian rebels are and what they are fighting for? How would we know that America succeeded? Is Assad a threat to the national security of America or to Al-Qaida jihadists? What if Assad’s regime used chemical attacks against rebels and those who seek to oust him? The decision to engage in a military attack against Syria is more complex than a simple targeted attack on regime military compounds. It will have long-term consequences for American national interests.
Iran is threating to attack Israel if the US sends missiles into Syria, and Israel is preparing for war, the White House spokesperson Josh Ernest said. “The President of the United States is elected with the duty to protect the national security interests in the United States of America.” It is true, but how will President Obama be protecting America’s national security interest by attacking Syria? I think he will undermine American national interests by doing so.
If America does become involved in the war in the Middle East, in the end it will not matter in terms of the US relations because, for the most part, they all hate America. It does not matter what America does for them; further, the place is hardly stable. The President is talking only about Syrian rebels, but he has failed to explain to the American people, or simply does not realize, that the rebels in Syria have multiple factions. For example, regarding one of them, Al-Qaida, we see that it is much worse than the Assad regime. At least under the Assad regime Christians and Muslims lived together.
The best U.S national interest security is to spend American dollars on boosting the American economy and educational system rather than on going to war in Syria, primarily so that America will not borrow more money from China and thus become more dependent on China. In addition, the UN has not even yet finished its investigation about who was behind the chemical attack. American foreign policy – especially military action against the Assad regime, should be based on clear and compelling national interest, but President Obama has not clarified what American security stakes rest in a Syrian sectarian war. President Obama’s advisors do not know that the core of the Syrian war is not about bringing democracy to the Syrian people; it is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is not a new conflict but rather one that goes back hundreds of years. Assad is a Shiite, but the majority of Syria is Sunni. Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have been pouring millions of dollars into the conflict to promote a radical sect of Islam, because they want the Shia regime in Syria to be eliminated and a Sunni government to replace it. It is also normal for Iranian national security interests not to allow this Sunni coup to happen by supporting the Assad regime.
It is almost utterly nonsense for America to think that America does not want nuclear weapons to get in the hands of Al- Qaeda or any other jihadists who probably will determine to use them against American interests, but at the same time America will support jihadists to topple Assad. Saudi Arabia and Turkey have no problem using Al-Qaida to achieve their goals of national interest to fight against Assad and the Kurdish minority. As a matter of fact, Al-Qaida, not the Shia group, killed more than three thousand Americans in 9/11, so America thinks Saudis and Turks are allies of the US and, consequently, is spending lots of money to train and equip the rebels in Syria. America should not do the dirty work of Turkey and Saudi Arabia. America does not have any true allies. The only allies were the Kurds, but for the sake of Turkey, America lost Kurdish trust as well.
Seemingly, not even a semi-clear path to peace and stability seems to emerge in the region. And even if there were, there is not much President Obama could do to have influence over the regional powers that could move toward a resolution. Beyond that, America has not really won any war in the Middle East, because war is easier to begin than to finish. We see this in Iraq, where sectarian violence is breaking out; in Afghanistan, which is now ruled by the local warlords; and in Libya where jihadists killed the US ambassador with no intervention and no consequences. President Obama assured the American people that he would not put boots on the ground, but cruise missiles do not topple a regime; it is the troops on the ground that will finish the job. It is ironic that President Obama and most of the Democrats called the Iraq War a “dumb war.” I wonder if this war is somehow smarter and better. Also, ironically Vice President Biden said President Bush should be impeached for going into Iraq; yet, he supports President Obama’s recent declaration. I strongly believe there is not any good that can come out of Syria that will benefit American national security or strategic national interests. On the other hand, I do believe the Assad regime is absolutely terrible and that he is a murderous dictator, but what country or leader in the Middle East is better than Assad? Iran continues to oppress and kill its Kurdish minority; Iraq is following suit; and Turkey has oppressed and killed thousands of Kurdish people and even today more than 20 million Kurds do not have freedom. While people may rightly think Assad is cruel and horrible, significantly, they fail to ask if the rebels are good.
Dr. Aland Mizell is with the University of Mindanao School of Social Science, President of the MCI and a regular contributor to The Kurdistan Tribune, Kurdishaspect.com, Mindanao Times and Kurdish Media.You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com