Well just what is the west going to do about Syria ?
After two years of dithering in the face of Bashar Assad’s assault on his own
people, evidence is emerging of the one thing that was assured would result in
western intervention. Is anyone surprised that this is now being downplayed
quicker than you can say “Sarin nerve agent”?
The truth is that neither Obama nor any of his western
allies want to invade Syria .
The middle-east is awash with the type of weaponry that can seriously damage
the health of your soldiers and most importantly (though not directly relevant
in the case of Obama) your prospects of re-election. Add to this porous borders
and a large number of unemployed young men with the motivation to fight against
“the west” and it’s easy to see why western leaders prefer the option of
hand-wringing coupled with heavy sighing.
 |
| Photo by creativedoxphoto courtesy: freedigitalphotos.net |
So long as intervention in Syrian remains a war of choice with
no-one able to pick up the tab, the most favourable option for the political
class is to continue with the current policy of condemnatory press releases and
behind the scenes support to the rebels.
Then of course there’s the fact that a re-emergent Russia , which controls the supply of natural gas
to mainland Europe and just happens to have a
naval base in Tartus, is adamantly opposed to any western intervention. Russia ’s
steadfast objections have stymied any action in the UN Security Council over
the last two years. Vladimir Putin, still slighted by the west’s actions in
Libya, simply won’t let it happen again not least when the Syrian conflict
represents both a danger to Russia’s strategic interests and an opportunity to
damage those of the US.
Finally, the alternatives to Assad are just as unpalatable
as the dentist himself. Despite what is publically admitted the lessons of Egypt and Libya are two-fold. Firstly, that
only boots on the ground will secure a result that is preferable to western
interests and secondly, that even in the most optimal circumstances, the Arab
world is not going to move in the direction of genuine democracy any time soon.
The most recent attempt at state-building, in Iraq , turned
out to be less than successful resulting in an unstable patchwork of simmering sectarian
tensions. In Egypt and Libya , the
results are no less encouraging. The tin-pot dictators; Mubarak and Gadhaffi
have been replaced by Islamic theocrats whom neither endorse, nor sympathise
with a liberal, democratic worldview and have no idea how to solve the problems
their nations face.
In Syria itself, the Sunni insurgents who have flooded into
the country whilst the west prevaricated, are heavily linked to al-Qaida and
the west have no desire to directly place an Islamic Theocracy on Israel’s
border to complement those now running Egypt and the Gaza Strip, not least for
fear of unleashing a regional war.
In some ways this is a demonstration of how things can go
wrong when you appease a dictator who kills his own people. Cowed by their
electorate, western leaders have refused to endorse the only action that might
have brought about a positive change; early intervention. Had the west
intervened when Assad begun the slaughter of civilian demonstrators they would
have been able to more effectively control both Syrian borders- restricting the
involvement of al-Qaida- and the political process which follows the fall of
Assad. Two years later and the Syrian state is weakened to the point that
large-scale western intervention will probably make Iraq look like a picnic.
All of this shows why US/NATO intervention is unlikely so
long as Assad remains confident enough that his chemical weapons need be used
only on a limited scale. The conclusion seems to be that the best option is to
do nothing so long as Assad and the insurgents continue killing each other (and
innocent civilians caught up in the conflict) in roughly the current numbers.
There is just one complicating factor. The Iranians who are
actively helping Assad to murder his own people are watching the West. As the
Mullahs continue to play cat and mouse over their nuclear weapons programme, a
failure by the US
to intervene having declared a red line will only give credence to the already suspected
notion that Obama is not serious about using military means to prevent an
Iranian nuclear bomb. As has often been stated only a credible threat of force
will give the Iranians the incentive to back down, otherwise they can feasibly
tough it out until they achieve their nuclear ambitions.
Whichever way this turns don’t expect decisive Western
leadership. The past two years have shown that alongside their appalling
understanding of events in the Middle-East, there is no appetite for further
middle-eastern intervention, either from the politicians or those who vote for
them.
