The loss of precious lives caused due to the alleged use of chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians in eastern Damascus’ Ghouta last month has all of a sudden raised the specter of another bloody war in the Middle East.
The ghastly footage of lifeless bodies — of men, women and children — choked to death by the impact of some form of malicious chemical agent undoubtedly bolstered the case for action against Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. After dilly-dallying for quite some time, the Obama administration has at long last been swayed by the call for launching one decisive military action against Assad’s army to put an end to the bitter internal fratricide that has taken a distinctive shape of genocide. Obama has sought Congress approval for a military strike and the world is waiting with bated breath as to what will happen next?
Though the case for international action against Assad’s regime is strong enough to be pursued, especially after the UN confirmation of an overall death toll of over 100,000 apart from seven million displacements, no consensus has yet been reached on UN-led peace enforcement mission in Syria. Moreover, the Arab League has stopped short of explicitly supporting a unilateral US action to dislodge Assad even as Washington clearly asserted that the Obama administration is not in the business of enforcing a regime change in Syria. This indeed leaves us with a serious question. What would a limited drone and missile strike on Syrian military targets achieve at the end of the day? Nothing more than gigantic collateral civilian casualties, one would assume, because Assad’s forces will have ample time to perniciously intermingle its military assets within civilian populations as a camouflage. Perhaps this confusing scenario and the reported proliferation of deadly chemical compounds to Al-Nusrah front, having genealogical linkage with Al-Qaeda, has put US allies like Britain and Germany in a dilemma. British Parliament has already rejected any move to join a US led attack on Syria while the Germans are wary of exacerbating sectarian schism in an already divided nation and getting embroiled in a messy situation without knowing the exit route.
As things stands now, the real intent of the US military strategists is to provide effective air support to the rebels fighting a losing battle on the ground in addition to replenishing their weapon’s stock. The international community must ensure that such consignment does not fall in wrong hands. Surely, the world will not like to see a resurgence of Al-Qaeda in the garb of dismantling an authoritarian regime in Syria.
That will be the worst disservice done to humanity by Nobel laureate Barack Obama. Let no one be under any illusions that a limited “no boots on the ground” attack in conjunction with covert tactical ground missions would drastically alter the environment in Syria and that the nation already battered by civil war will turn into a haven of peace overnight. Iraq is a glaring example in hand. Also, the context and dynamic in Iraq — where the US Army last got enmeshed in physical ground action anywhere in Middle East — was completely different from the one prevailing in Syria presently.
Besides, Iraq was not mired in a civil war then and thus the question of taking sides in a fratricidal conflict that would have far reaching regional and global consequences did not arise. In today’s Syria, Assad continues to enjoy formidable support of a section of population despite the stiff opposition faced by him and there lies the real danger of getting trapped in a sectarian crossfire — a contemporary phenomenon running across the Arab world. President Obama, busy drumming up domestic support therefore needs to do some real homework on how to free Syria from the clutches of an embattled and desperate dictatorship and achieve a peaceful transition into a prosperous democracy.
It certainly is no easy task and merely seeking stopgap military intervention is not enough to stem the rot in Syria.
Let us also not forget that a number of factors combined to trigger the 2011 uprising and any hasty move will only help create a vortex of violence wherein all the major stakeholders will be sucked.
• Seema Sengupta is a Kolkata-based journalist and columnist.
Email: [email protected]
