& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

To attack or not to attack: US conundrum on Syria

The US Congress may endorse Obama's plan of action or it may not. Finally, Obama may or may not act according to the Congress recommendation. All we can hope for is a sane approach to end this insane war. A new war may not be the right answer.

Ziauddin Choudhury
PRESIDENT Obama's decision to seek congressional approval before a reprisal against the Assad regime in Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons against its own people took the world by surprise. Only a few days before, both President Obama and Foreign Secretary Kerry had spoken in the strongest terms against Assad and had all but pressed the button on the missiles heading toward Damascus. President Obama had declared that the "redline" had been crossed by Syria and it was time that the regime was taught a lesson. The battleships were ready, and many residents in Damascus reportedly were ready to evacuate. But the missiles were not launched, and bombs were not dropped on Damascus or on the presidential palace there.
Political pundits here and abroad have opined that two factors made President Obama change his decision -- the British Parliament's vote against an attack on Syria, and dissension among members of his own Democratic Party in the Congress on starting another war. Although seeking Congressional approval before launching an attack on another country is not obligatory for the president, Obama made a clever move to shift the onus of making the decision on Syria to the Congress. If he were to go war with Syria he would like the majority of members of the Congress (100 Senators and 435 Congressmen) to give him the green signal. Will it happen?
The hand wringing over going to another war in the Middle East had been going on since the civil war in Syria began more than two years ago. Citing examples of supporting rebel causes in Libya and helping to topple Gaddafi there, hawks in the US have been urging President Obama to side with the rebels and help bring down another Middle East dictator. Yielding to growing demands for military support to the rebels at one stage the Obama administration had talked about limited military support to the rebels, which however did not materialise for many reasons.
Unlike Libya, the Syrian civil war proved to be more long lasting as the Assad regime had several advantages in its favour. Primary among these were solid Russian backing, both materially and diplomatically, and support from Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah for a fellow Shiite regime. Disagreement among Arab countries for a common approach toward opposing Assad also helped the regime considerably.
Another factor that contributed to dilly dallying of Western military support (particularly US) for the Syrian rebels was alleged participation in the rebellion by Islamic militants. There were media reports late last year of efforts to introduce Sharia laws in some areas under the control of rebels with al-Qaeda affiliation. These obviously led to fears in the West that weapons, purportedly given to support a rebellion against the Assad regime, could land among groups that are openly against the West. Such a military support could be self-defeating for the US and Western countries. Another distraction came earlier this year from the Egyptian crisis with Morsi's fall and military takeover of that country. The US has more at stake in Egypt than in Syria. The game changer for Syria has been the regime's alleged use of chemical weapons against its people, and deaths of children and women from the use of such weapons. The horrifying images of such mindless attacks and the victims caused considerable sympathy and outrage in people's mind, giving additional fuel to the hawks for stopping the regime militarily. The most vocal among the Senators and Congressmen have openly urged the president to give an adequate response, by attacking Syria. The doves have been less vocal, but they made it known either in interviews or in surveys that they do not want another war.
Lost in this rhetoric on both sides is the voice of the people, which, in the absence of a referendum, can be heard only from occasional rallies or opinions given through the media. On the surface it would seem the public is divided like the Congress. The country is suffering from fatigue of two wars, and it can ill afford another, either financially or psychologically. People watch and see the sufferings in Syria like they have seen before in similar other countries. But should the US be interested to save and rescue any country because its leader has launched a war on his own people, or because groups in that country are engaged in an internecine war? Unfortunately, the hawks do not care for public opinion; their focus is on a strategic interest that common people cannot relate to.
A decision on whether to launch a US attack on Damascus will probably be known in a week after both houses have gone through the deliberations in their respective Foreign Affairs Committees. The most recent survey by the Washington Post (September 3) reveals that out of 100 Senators about one third are either against it or leaning toward
opposing the attack. The rest are either undecided or favour the attack. In a survey of 189 Congressmen less than half were either against the war or leaning toward opposing it. More than half of the surveyed Congressmen are either undecided or favour the war.
The survey may not reflect the final outcome of the Congress vote, but the future of the war in Syria and the people affected by it is riding on this outcome and the president's decision following the vote. The civil war in Syria has caused more than 100,000 deaths in two and half years, and has turned over two million people into refugees in neighbouring countries. The US is between a rock and a hard place in choosing an option. A complete non-response will further bolster the criticism of the president for his failure to stop a brutal dictator, and encourage continued oppression of Syrian people. On the other hand, a military response and attack on Syria will be viewed by critics of the US as another brazen attempt to destroy a Muslim country. The irony is that the latter critics do not appreciate how the Syrian regime is itself leading the country to destruction by its own action.
The US Congress may endorse Obama's plan of action or it may not. Finally, Obama may or may not act according to the Congress recommendation. All we can hope for is a sane approach to end this insane war. A new war may not be the right answer.
The writer is a US based analyst, and commentator.
E-mail: zchoudhury@verizon.net