Warfare is a very serious business whose first imperative is to deploy force to win – rather than to punish, make a statement, establish a symbolic point, or preen about one’s morality.
Yet, these latter are precisely what several Western states will accomplish if they respond to the Syrian government’s apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians with “limited” strikes lasting one or two days against fewer than fifty sites. Briefly lobbing American, British, and other missiles against the regime without a concomitant readiness to deploy ground troops will neither overthrow the government nor change the course of the war. It will, however, allow Westerners to feel good about themselves.
It will also entail real dangers. Bashar al-Assad’s notorious incompetence means his response cannot be anticipated. Western strikes could, among other possibilities, inadvertently lead to increased regime attacks on civilians, violence against Israel, an activation of sleeper cells in Western countries, or heightened dependence on Tehran. Surviving the strikes also permits Assad to boast that he defeated the United States.
In other words, the imminent attack entails few potential benefits but many potential drawbacks. As such, it neatly encapsulates the Obama administration’s failed foreign policy. (August 28, 2013)
If the goal of this administration is to weaken the country (US) then it is not a failed policy.
Obama’s red line comment about Syrian chemical weapons stuck his big foot down his throat. He does not know how to get out of this without shooting some missiles at Syria. What will be the fallout? Who will get killed? Who will get sucked into this war after he does this?
What will it accomplish? Obama had a foreign policy to be the anti-George Bush. When this did not work the community organizer got lost in the woods and can not find his way home.
Obama will be a Johnny come lately if he orders a strike.
Let’s say this latest lethal gas attack killed 1,000 innocent Iraqis. That is 1% of those innocents who died from Assad’s use of conventional military weapons over the last 2 years over which time Obama, but for drawing his red line on chemical weapons a year ago and done nothing about it since.
Why do chemical weapons raise the moral indignation of Obama and the West, but not conventional military weapons which kill far more innocents?
Obama will almost certainly take some action, not to help the situation or American interests, but to try to claw back some of the large amount of credibility he has already lost. That is never a good reason to step foot into a war.
Daniel Pipes has been consistent in his argument that taking sides in the Syrian civil war would be disadvantageous to the US and western countries, and to Israel. Plus, it is being caught between the devil and the deep blue sea” with respects to whom we should give support and against whom we should fight. Though the west now sounds most concerned about humanitarian issues/slaughters that the Syrian people face, where have they been in other times with respects to violence and immoral acts committed against Christians and other minorities in a number of countries?