August 29, 2013
A couple of days now political and military mobilization is being stirred over the possible invasion of NATO in Syria. As of 2001 or 2003 when the United States pressed for invading Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of the war against terrorism, President Obama, and from the EU leaders mainly UK’s PM David Cameron, have launched their polemic against President Assad under the pretext of the use of chemical weapons against civilians. A new war might be ahead, but the reasoning lacks serious justification.
The European Union is keeping its voice low and statements are more skeptical without exertion of verbal threats. In the forthcoming article of mine in the Greek weekly Free Sunday this weekend I point out my firm prediction that a warfare in Syria initiated by the United States and its allies is not that possible to happen. I focus my analysis on the fact that having in mind the previous experience of invasion from the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, the outcome of military reinforcement and implementation has ended up creating a disastrous post-war condition. Devastating infrastructure, poverty, unemployment, lack of basic needs and, overall, a potential fractious politics in the years to follow.
The United States cannot acknowledge that they do not possess the military, financial, and diplomatic largesse to launch such an invasion in alignment with other strategic allies in Europe. In the contrary, the discussion in the UK and Europe seems to be more rational and, fundamentally, more bound to the legislation of the international public law and the respect over the sovereignty and the independence of each nation globally. Even if the development of civil war in Syria has taken unprecedented dimensions, especially with the alleged use of chemical weapons –for which I repeat we do not have certain and concrete evidence of use- there is no external power authorized to act on behalf of the Syrian people, nor the Iraqi people, nor the Iranian people, or the Israeli people or anyone else.
I strongly believe that President’s Obama determination to launch an attack on Syria will certainly lead to another endless war in the Middle East and it can possibly involve Iran, Turkey, and Israel long-term. In addition, mainstream media in Europe and the United States have completely forgotten that the civil war in Syria has been from the onset a deeply sectarian, foreign-funded insurgency, independently from the atrocities made by both Assad and the counter-Assad movement. There is no democratic uprising, nor Arab Spring in Syria; it is simply an artificial war that it turns to be a bloodshed with no signs of retreat or compromise. Every information streaming from the media is widely hypocritical and ironic, except for the countless massacres of the people of Syria.
Furthermore, there are two additional variables dealing with the possible invasion in Syria. The one is linked with the role of Russia, and the second with the fact that the US cannot discern that by hitting Syria -and henceforth the forces of President Assad- they automatically commit their side to the camp of Al-Qaeda.
Russia’s military supplies have been critical to Assad’s army success on the battlefield, let alone the fact that Moscow has consistently support diplomatically Syria in the United Nations. The latter is inextricably interwoven with the US pretext on military invasion based on the use of chemical weapons as there is no other diplomatic or mediating means to get practically involved in Syria. Further, there is less interest on the fact that most of the alleged use of chemical weapons has been destined to the Kurdish community and that anti-rebel sentiments are on the rise during last months. In many areas in Syria locals seem to be more inclined to live in peace than face death penalty by siding Assad or the the so-called rebels. There are many extremists coming back to Assad’s camp, mainly due to government’s policy to grant amnesty.
On the other hand, if US decides to intervene in Syria, it will set itself on the side of Al-Qaida and the forces that are affiliated with. Historically, politically, and strategically such a decision is going to confuse public opinion in the US and dismantle all the previous propaganda on the war against terrorism since 2001.
Under such complicated conditions, I certainly believe that during the following days all strategic groups in the US and Europe should seriously ponder on the prons and cons of such an invasion. And, above all, they should additionally ponder on the side-effects in the aftermath of the military intervention for Syria and the wider region.Dimitris Rapidis