US President Barack Obama's weighing up of his Syria options has drawn worldwide attention. With a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles sent to the eastern Mediterranean, the US is "preparing options for all contingencies," in Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's words.
Meanwhile, the White House is still hesitant and hasn't made its final decision. Obama has been reluctant to take direct military action, although he has repeatedly stressed a "red line" on Syria. Obama is, once again, facing the plight of the US' Middle-East policy.
According to a latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, about 60 percent of Americans oppose intervention in Syria, whereas only 9 percent believe Obama should act. The Obama administration clearly understands that it would be extremely hard to justify the legitimacy of another expensive military adventure in the Middle East.
Since his first term, Obama has been seeking strategic relaxation in the region. His announcement in 2011 of the end of the Iraq War and his later vows to close down the Afghan theater have earned him political points.
The Americans spent the whole decade during the Iraq War debating which goal was more pragmatic in the Middle East, democracy or stability, only to find that neither was achievable.
Nonetheless, two self-conflicting goals are haunting top decision-makers in Washington while they mull over the Syria options. While seeking to avoid US commitment to the Syrian conflict, the Obama administration cannot afford to make no response to Syria's "humanitarian crisis" either, as this would erode Washington's moral standing in the Middle East.
The suspected chemical weapons use in the suburbs of Damascus last week, though denied by the Bashar al-Assad government, has touched the "red line" that Obama has long maintained. The importance to conserve US credibility and determination to ensure this "red line" is, in many analysts' eyes, a more pertinent element that will drive Washington toward war. And it is on this basis that Obama is thought likely to bomb Syria in the coming weeks.
A New York Times report on Friday revealed that Obama's national security team was "studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the UN." Just as some US observers argue, Washington is now stuck choosing between bad options, which will make the Syria situation even more complex.
And once the US intervenes and serves as a game-changer to the prolonged Syrian war, it cannot get away with not dealing with the political vacuum or any other political aftermath it helps create. History repeats itself, and Pandora's Box has been re-opened.
Monday, August 26, 2013
No correct Syria option looks positive to Obama
US President Barack Obama's weighing up of his Syria options has drawn worldwide attention. With a fourth warship armed with ballistic missiles sent to the eastern Mediterranean, the US is "preparing options for all contingencies," in Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's words.
Meanwhile, the White House is still hesitant and hasn't made its final decision. Obama has been reluctant to take direct military action, although he has repeatedly stressed a "red line" on Syria. Obama is, once again, facing the plight of the US' Middle-East policy.
According to a latest Reuters/Ipsos poll, about 60 percent of Americans oppose intervention in Syria, whereas only 9 percent believe Obama should act. The Obama administration clearly understands that it would be extremely hard to justify the legitimacy of another expensive military adventure in the Middle East.
Since his first term, Obama has been seeking strategic relaxation in the region. His announcement in 2011 of the end of the Iraq War and his later vows to close down the Afghan theater have earned him political points.
The Americans spent the whole decade during the Iraq War debating which goal was more pragmatic in the Middle East, democracy or stability, only to find that neither was achievable.
Nonetheless, two self-conflicting goals are haunting top decision-makers in Washington while they mull over the Syria options. While seeking to avoid US commitment to the Syrian conflict, the Obama administration cannot afford to make no response to Syria's "humanitarian crisis" either, as this would erode Washington's moral standing in the Middle East.
The suspected chemical weapons use in the suburbs of Damascus last week, though denied by the Bashar al-Assad government, has touched the "red line" that Obama has long maintained. The importance to conserve US credibility and determination to ensure this "red line" is, in many analysts' eyes, a more pertinent element that will drive Washington toward war. And it is on this basis that Obama is thought likely to bomb Syria in the coming weeks.
A New York Times report on Friday revealed that Obama's national security team was "studying the NATO air war in Kosovo as a possible blueprint for acting without a mandate from the UN." Just as some US observers argue, Washington is now stuck choosing between bad options, which will make the Syria situation even more complex.
And once the US intervenes and serves as a game-changer to the prolonged Syrian war, it cannot get away with not dealing with the political vacuum or any other political aftermath it helps create. History repeats itself, and Pandora's Box has been re-opened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment