Syria Attack is Obama's Answer to a Tortuous Summer (El Pais, Spain)
"Like it or not, in a region where politics and religion
are two sides of the same coin, the more democratic the Middle East, the
greater the role of Islam in public life. ... The debate between interests and
principles was resolved in a single stroke: it preserves his credibility and
verbal assurances, and at the same time reasserts the continued fact of the U.S.
superpower, wipes away his image as a weak president, and sends a message to
Iran that despite its nuclear program, his patience has its limits. In brief -
that the U.S. does not speak in vain."
T.E. Laurence: The real-life Lawrence of Arabia had a hand in how the modern Middle East is constituted today. Are we in the West getting any better at it?
We
are in the final stage of a summer during which nearly everything was tortuous
and nothing went according to plan. Hopes raised by the Arab Spring, that
democracy is possible and can be sparked in that world, have largely been
aborted by the coup d'état perpetrated by the Egyptian military - with the
support of secular and liberal sectors and the absent-minded acceptance of European
countries and the United States. It was an irresponsible attitude for which we
will pay a heavy price. The West has declared its incapacity to comprehend political
Islam. Like it or not, in a region where politics and religion are two sides of
the same coin, the more democratic the Middle East, the greater the role of
Islam in public life. The installation of General Al-Sisi
and the repression imposed to eliminate the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be
understood without the complicity of the United States, which encouraged
democracy in the Muslim world. What remains today of Obama's famous speech at
the University of Cairo? Washington prefers the Egyptian Praetorians, who ensure
the strategic peace agreement with Israel and the dignity and freedom of over
80 million citizens of the leading Arab nation.
When
you unravel the illusion of summer and return to routine, the shadow of Iraq and
the deceitful, catastrophic invasion of 2003 reemerge. Obama, the president
chosen largely because he was not George W. Bush, seems determined to replicate
the action of his predecessor in the White House: with a military attack on
Syria, he seeks to show war criminal Assad that he cannot cross the rashly-drawn red line
traced just a year ago. We thought we were vaccinated against repeating these
mistakes. No longer are there hundreds of thousands of citizens protesting a
newly-announced war in the streets of the world's major cities. Nevertheless, like
a decade ago, U.N. inspectors are in Damascus looking for traces of chemical
weapons that in all likelihood were used by Assad against his own people. We expect
a sudden, imminent attack, with cruise missiles that the U.S. will launch like
messenger pigeons with a note that Assad desist from gassing his citizens.
Washington has preemptively reassured the Syrian dictator that it is not about removing
him from power.
Surprisingly,
Obama, by not intervening in the Syrian civil war, has permitted over 100,000 deaths,
nearly two million refugees have fled the country, and four million are
internally displaced. He has been cured of his fear of North
America's wars, fully conscious of exhausted public opinion and the unbearable
economic costs. The sectarian, ethnic and religious dimensions of the Syrian
civil war justified Obama's prudence. Now though, the most pragmatic president
since Eisenhower embraced
Franco in Barajas has decided not to let pass the first chemical weapons
attack of the 21st century.
Posted By
Worldmeets.US
The
debate between interests and principles was resolved in a single stroke: it preserves
his credibility and verbal assurances, and at the same time reasserts the continued
fact of the U.S. superpower, wipes away his image as a weak president, and sends
a message to Iran that despite its nuclear program, his patience has limits.
In brief - that the U.S. does not speak in vain. This serves to safeguard the
principle of protecting a threatened population enduring an extreme humanitarian
situation, for which the exceptional breaking of international law to redress
the obscene immorality of a chemical weapons attack will be excused. Tony
Blair, one of the cynical architects of the Iraq invasion, talks of
demonstrating that we aren't being swept away by events, and that the West is
capable of defining them, i.e.: first a decision is made, and then legal cover
is sought.
This
majestic group refers, in addition to the United States, to two other leaders
committed to the war and experiencing political lows: David Cameron, whose parliament has
rejected war, and Hollande. The European Union is sitting out this game. The leaders of Britain and France, former colonial powers which, with chests bared, defined the borders of Syria and divided the Middle East only a century ago, did the same in Libya. Things today are much more prosaic. It is about an urgent need to do
something, even if just to be seen doing something, without the U.N., bypassing
Congress, which is suspicious of the explanation and evidence offered by the
president, and over the doubts expressed by military leaders in the Pentagon. What
is about to happen may be legal, but it isn't smart, and may even be disastrous
for the entire Middle East.
