George Bush 43 has made a big deal about decision points. It
is the focus around which he hopes he will ensure his legacy and allow history
to see him in a better light. He
has written a book entitled “Decision Points” and his new museum has an
interactive video “learning center” where you are given all the facts as
“dubbaya” perceived them and then asked to make a decision. Your answer is
compared with that of the President whom, incidentally, gave himself the title
of “The Decider” during his terms of Office. If you disagree with 43, by the
way, you are told you are wrong!
The major decision point was the preemptive war on Iraq and
George has his work cut out to change the perceptions on that one. (Blog: The
Iraq War Deception and Its Aftermath, March 2013.)
Well, Obama is having his decision point moments right now
and Syria stands out like a beacon of decision point making. (You can almost
see Dubbaya licking his lips at the thought). Both Syria and Iraq were purported
to have weapons of mass destruction. Both countries are oppressors of their
people. In fact if it wasn’t for oil there would be more compelling reasons to
invade Syria then there were for Iraq!
Now Syria has been hanging around for about 2 years and the
current President’s decision has ostensibly been to make no decision. Rather he
drew a red line in the sand, namely if Syria deployed its chemical weapons then
that would be the impetus to change America’s response. However, as is evident
even that “game changer” is subject to many provisions.
On the face of it the two Presidents are looking at similar
situations that might require similar decisions but as will be seen that they
are approaching this major foreign policy issue, namely intervention, from two
entirely different philosophical viewpoints as to the role of the USA in the
world.
THE CASE FOR INTERVENTION IN SYRIA
The number one protagonists and followers of the Bush
foreign policy philosophy, which have been in favor of Syrian intervention from
the very beginning of the conflict, are John McCain and Lindsey Graham. They
maintain that not only has the red line been crossed, that Obama has given the
Syrian Government a green line to do everything else. While till recently
McCain and Lindsay have not been specific as what should have been done they
would now would like to arm the rebels and create a no fly zone. Their central
argument is that the USA, as the only super power in the world should be
heavily involved. The reasons are many and varied, from US security, supporting
Israel, humanitarian aid and so on. Underlying it all is the belief that the
USA needs to show who controls the world.
OBAMA’S PHILOSPHY ON SYRIAN INTERVENTION
Obama is acting on a number of umbrella principles:
- Any
intervention undertaken will to have international support, preferably the
UNO Security Council. The US is not going to take any major responsibility
on its own. Obama may even take the lead but there has to be a
consensus in world opinion.
- Arming
of anyone anywhere in an unstable situation is a last resort because at
the end of the day there is no guarantee where these arms are going to end
up. (Some of he Libyan arms are in Mali.)
- Boots
on the ground are out.
- Real
arms help will only go to trusted allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Obama has called it quits on the USA being the policeman of
the world. There is no mileage in this activity. It is not only
counterproductive but America, after is all and said and done, are cheered only
when they leave, having lost all that blood and treasure.
What was achieved in Iraq other than civil unrest and
throwing the new Government into the arms of Iran? What was achieved by arming
the rebels fighting Russia in Afghanistan other than the Taliban taking over
the country and the creation of Osama’s Al Qaeda?
Jay H. Ell has the feeling if Obama had it all over again he
would have just used drones in Afghanistan. Obama obviously feels that the USA
does not have to show its dominance by attempting to control the world.
DECISION POINT
SYRIA - US POLICY CHANGE
This non-interventionist attitude represents a major change
in US post Second World War foreign policy – a policy that was initially
justified as means to an end in the Cold War. This haphazard approach that resulted
in Korean and Vietnam wars, besides all that death and carnage those wars
created, the inheritance is a pair of crazies in North Korea and North Vietnam.
After the Cold War the justification was more arrogance and belief that the
USA’s position in the world warranted intervention to right wrongs. In addition
the US reserved the right to act preemptively to any perceived threat to its
security. The US was the boss. This was Bush 43’s modus operandi and every
other post war President, even Clinton’s.
While there is a deep philosophical basis to Obama’s
approach there is also much practicability and reality. In this day and age of
technology to send in the cavalry to be blown up by IED’s is lunacy. This is
asymmetrical warfare that must be met with an asymmetrical response. You need
drones, bombs that bust bunkers, computer hackers that screw up a nuclear
programs, satellite observation, robots and the like to cope with threats.
(Blog: Obama Killing Americans – Moans on Drones, February 2013).
On a reality basis the issue of which rebel group to support
in the Syrian crises is a real problem. There is Al Qaeda. There is a report
from the BBC that it was a rebel group, probably Al Qaeda, who was responsible
for the chemical weapons and not the Syrian regime. So why should the USA get
involved in this mess?
Also Israel has jumped in. The latter has differing
immediate concerns but their objectives still coincide with US foreign policy
and Israel is a “registered” ally of the USA. There is very little doubt that
they would have not have intervened without discussion with the USA. So Israel
with a legitimate interest in the region could well coordinate their actions
with the USA and execute actions that would not be that defensible for the USA
to do.
WHY OBAMA APPOINTED HAGEL
Some of the statements
attributed to Secretary of Defense Hagel, in the past, make it obvious why
Obama appointed him as Secretary of State and why his former hawk Republican
colleagues in the Senate gave him such a tough time:
“We've got to understand
great-power limitations. There are so many uncontrollable variables at play in
Syria and the Middle East. You work through the multilateral institutions that
are available, the U.N., the Arab League”.
“The United States will remain
committed to defending Israel. Our relationship with Israel is a special and
historic one”.
“ We’ve got to get out of those
wars, (Iraq and Afghanistan). Let the people decide what they want. If they
don’t want what we wanted for them, or if they certainly don’t want what we
wanted for them as much as we want it, then we can’t control that.”
AT THE END OF THE DAY
There are really only two major reasons to intervene in one
fashion or another. These relate to humanitarian and security issues. As seen
the latter are open to interpretation and have a history of turning sour. The
Americans, even when they arrive to rid the country of oppression are only
cheered on the way out. They then disturb the balance of power that worsens the
internal security position as well as American security - Iraq. Or the
aftermath results in a monster that threatens the world – North Korea. Thus the
law of unintended consequences rules supreme.
With regard to humanitarian aid that is what it is. You
provide food, shelter, safe havens and the like. It can even be stretched to
bombing supply lines or key targets that are responsible for atrocities as was
done in Bosnia and Libya. But at the end of the day the US isn’t there with
boots on the ground and being attacked and keeping warring parties apart.
There is little or no doubt that America will be involved in
Syria. In fact they are currently providing humanitarian aid. However, if Obama
has anything to do with it, unless the USA is about to be attacked there will
be no more Koreas, Vietnams, Iraq’s and even Afghanistans.
There is little doubt too that each situation requires
unique solutions. But in the final analysis it is surely better to have as your
overarching principles a non interventionist policy as the basis for your
foreign policy as opposed to one that has been rightly or wrongly been labeled
as naked imperialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment