For the past 2½ years, the US and its allies have been deeply reluctant to become engaged in the Syrian civil war. Over the past few days, however, the mood in the Obama administration has clearly shifted. In the aftermath of an apparent chemical weapons attack on the eastern suburbs of Damascus, the US is clearly contemplating military action. Nothing, as yet is guaranteed. Instead, as Mr Obama and his allies contemplate the next steps, there are three broad questions they will be considering.
Before moving to military action, how much more time should the US and its allies allow for hard evidence to emerge of what happened in last week’s attacks?
Before moving to military action, how much more time should the US and its allies allow for hard evidence to emerge of what happened in last week’s attacks?
In the next few days, the US is likely to find itself in a new war of words with the Assad regime over what happened last week. After days of stalling, the regime looks likely to give
"Syria agrees to allow UN access to sites of alleged chemical attack to the site in eastern Damascus. On the other hand, the US will argue that this is too late because evidence of a chemical attack on the ground has degraded.
The US will say that, at the very least, Assad’s prevarication makes him culpable. That said, some western officials are bound to be mindful of the mistake made in March 2003 when the UK and US rushed to invade Iraq while UN inspectors were demanding more time to examine the allegations that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Obama administration will want to be sure that all reasonable possibilities for evidence gathering have been exhausted before moving to military action. Could the US and its allies mount an attack on Syria that is not formally backed by a UN resolution? Again, recollections of the Iraq war will be high on many minds.
The UK and US invaded without attaining the second UN resolution that many believed was legally required for invasion. In Syria’s case, Russia’s staunch backing for the Assad regime suggests the US will gain no Security Council authorisation.</div> Still, there are precedents for legal action without UN backing.
The US and its allies conducted the 78-day bombardment of Serbia in 1998 to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. This had no UN authorisation. Instead, then president Bill Clinton invoked the argument that it was right to protect people in danger. Few, if any, people today suggest that this was not a just war. The US, in the meantime, could argue that Syria is in breach of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws the use in war of poison gas.
Since the end of the first world war, global powers have placed a ban on the use of chemical weapons, especially nerve agents. The US could now make the argument that a military response is justified to prevent the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons becoming a new norm of warfare. The hardest question: What military action would the US undertake – and what would its aims be?</b></div> Until now, US and British military chiefs have been deeply opposed to any sustained engagement on the side of the rebels in Syria.
They believe that there are no moderate rebel groups who would be able to fill the power vacuum if the Assad regime collapsed. However, many military experts believe that what should be contemplated now is a one off intervention by the US and its allies which, at the very least, signals that they will not tolerate the continued use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in this conflict.</div> Brigadier Mike Herzog, a former senior figure in Israel’s Ministry of Defence, says the US should conduct what he calls a “stand-off air strike” on a Syrian military establishment. “You could target airfields, air assets, helicopters,” he says.
“Hitting any of these in a single strike would do a lot of damage. If it is big enough Assad will take notice. It could deter Assad from allowing chemical weapons to be used in this way again.”</div> A series of air and missile strikes that amount to a severe warning shot to the regime is the most likely military action the US and its allies will now undertake. But it carries many risks.
It might see the deaths of Russian and Iranian allies of the Assad regime on the ground, a development that would exacerbate international tensions. It might also bring about civilian casualties, allowing the Assad regime to turn the blame for events back on to the west. The risk for Mr Obama, however, is that failure to take any meaningful action at all would give the Assad regime the green light to use chemical weapons attacks on civilian population with even greater impunity. That is a risk that Mr Obama and his allies will not want to run.
Read more: Financial Times
"Syria agrees to allow UN access to sites of alleged chemical attack to the site in eastern Damascus. On the other hand, the US will argue that this is too late because evidence of a chemical attack on the ground has degraded.
The US will say that, at the very least, Assad’s prevarication makes him culpable. That said, some western officials are bound to be mindful of the mistake made in March 2003 when the UK and US rushed to invade Iraq while UN inspectors were demanding more time to examine the allegations that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
The Obama administration will want to be sure that all reasonable possibilities for evidence gathering have been exhausted before moving to military action. Could the US and its allies mount an attack on Syria that is not formally backed by a UN resolution? Again, recollections of the Iraq war will be high on many minds.
The UK and US invaded without attaining the second UN resolution that many believed was legally required for invasion. In Syria’s case, Russia’s staunch backing for the Assad regime suggests the US will gain no Security Council authorisation.</div> Still, there are precedents for legal action without UN backing.
The US and its allies conducted the 78-day bombardment of Serbia in 1998 to stop the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. This had no UN authorisation. Instead, then president Bill Clinton invoked the argument that it was right to protect people in danger. Few, if any, people today suggest that this was not a just war. The US, in the meantime, could argue that Syria is in breach of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws the use in war of poison gas.
Since the end of the first world war, global powers have placed a ban on the use of chemical weapons, especially nerve agents. The US could now make the argument that a military response is justified to prevent the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons becoming a new norm of warfare. The hardest question: What military action would the US undertake – and what would its aims be?</b></div> Until now, US and British military chiefs have been deeply opposed to any sustained engagement on the side of the rebels in Syria.
They believe that there are no moderate rebel groups who would be able to fill the power vacuum if the Assad regime collapsed. However, many military experts believe that what should be contemplated now is a one off intervention by the US and its allies which, at the very least, signals that they will not tolerate the continued use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in this conflict.</div> Brigadier Mike Herzog, a former senior figure in Israel’s Ministry of Defence, says the US should conduct what he calls a “stand-off air strike” on a Syrian military establishment. “You could target airfields, air assets, helicopters,” he says.
“Hitting any of these in a single strike would do a lot of damage. If it is big enough Assad will take notice. It could deter Assad from allowing chemical weapons to be used in this way again.”</div> A series of air and missile strikes that amount to a severe warning shot to the regime is the most likely military action the US and its allies will now undertake. But it carries many risks.
It might see the deaths of Russian and Iranian allies of the Assad regime on the ground, a development that would exacerbate international tensions. It might also bring about civilian casualties, allowing the Assad regime to turn the blame for events back on to the west. The risk for Mr Obama, however, is that failure to take any meaningful action at all would give the Assad regime the green light to use chemical weapons attacks on civilian population with even greater impunity. That is a risk that Mr Obama and his allies will not want to run.
Read more: Financial Times
No comments:
Post a Comment