President Obama’s Speech about U.S. Policy towards Syria

10 09 2013

obama

assad-syria

What did President Obama’s speech of Tuesday night tell us?  That’s not hard to discern.  In his own words, President Obama said, connoted, and conveyed the following:

  • The whole Syria policy and campaign is intrinsically linked to Iran.  President Obama said, “A failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path.”
  • The purpose of a military airstrike against Syria is to “deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.”  So the goalpost has moved, from what was once the “Responsibility to Protect” civilians from mass atrocities – known as the R2P principle – which was implemented in the Libya 2011 NATO campaign, to now the use of chemical weapons.  Down the road, will the goalpost shift yet again?
  • President Obama possesses “the authority to order military strikes,” yet he felt the need to respect U.S. democracy and take the debate to Congress.  That means that he is making gestures toward Congress for political legitimacy at the domestic level for military strikes against Syria, but leaves open a huge window to employ his executive authority to order the airstrikes, with or without that political endorsement.  This raises the question of whether or not the airstrikes, if and when they are carried out, will be defined as “war.”  The War Powers Resolution imposes certain parameters on the President, once he engages in military actions in the context of (conventional) war, understood as deploying troops on the ground.  Given that President Obama has promised not to put troops on the ground in Syria, that might allow the military airstrikes to sidestep the definition of war, as was the case the President made with the Libya campaign.  NATO led that campaign against Qaddafi, which allowed the President to say that the U.S. is not engaging in a war; it is carrying out cooperative engagement within the framework of NATO, without troops on the ground, and without the intent of regime change.  We know how it ended for Qaddafi, nonetheless.
  • President Obama asked every member of Congress and viewers at home to watch the videos of the August 21st chemical attack.  He uses the word “children” seven times, and “infant” and “our kids” also added in his speech.  Clearly, he is appealing to the audience’s compassion and humanitarian sensitivities and ideals.  It’s an emotional appeal for reserving the U.S. right to carry out airstrikes against specific targets inside Syria, which may in turn lead inadvertently to more chaos and civilian deaths.
  • Diplomacy engines are working hard, and the ball was lobbed into Russia’s court.  Russia responded by saying they would be glad to oversee the removal of chemical weapons from Syria.  The ball is now back in the U.S. court.  President Obama is giving diplomacy a chance.  But, at the same time, the President unequivocally maintains that the U.S. has the military standing by to continue to apply pressure on Assad, and act in the event that diplomacy fails.

What President Obama omitted, did not address, or left in a grey area included the following:

  • He said that, “We cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.”  The U.S. responsibility for actually triggering civil war, arguably in Iraq following the troops pull-out, and potentially after the 2014 pull-out from Afghanistan, is not mentioned or addressed.  Anyone who has watched the film or read the book, Charlie Wilson’s War, learns that after the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the U.S. packed its bags and left the Af-Pak region, despite Representative Wilson’s pleas for U.S. investments in Afghanistan’s postwar education sector.  The moment that happened, Afghanistan descended into civil war.  This also conveys the lesson that once a country enters a war, the chaos and instability does not end after the ceasefire or peace takes hold, or the core objectives of that country are achieved.
  • Chemical weapons use is not tolerated.  But, killing civilians by conventional means since 2011, with a death count beyond the 100,000 mark, is unchallenged.
  • The poison gas sarin is mentioned a few times.  While some analysts have said that rebels could not have deployed chemical weapons because it requires sophisticated technology, no one has mentioned the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attack in Japan’s Tokyo subway in 1995.  The cult, Aum Shinrikyo, coordinated five attacks on the Tokyo subway, killing 13 and injuring fifty severely.

According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), this is how the Aum Shinrikyo operatives carried out the sarin gas attack (see http://www.cfr.org/japan/aum-shinrikyo/p9238):

“During the morning rush hour on one of the world’s busiest commuter systems, Aum members put a liquid form of sarin, tightly contained in packages made to look like lunch boxes or bottled drinks, onto five cars on three separate subway lines that converged at the Kasumigaseki station, where several government ministries are located. The perpetrators punctured the packages with umbrellas and left them in subway cars and stations, where they began to leak a thick liquid. Witnesses said that subway entrances resembled battlefields as injured commuters lay gasping on the ground with blood gushing from their noses or mouths. Twelve members of Aum, including Aum founder Shoko Asahara, were sentenced to death for the subway attack.”

  • President Obama said, “Al Qaeda (AQ) will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death.”  Who’s to say that AQ can’t still get its hands on some chemical weapons?  By the way, many argue that U.S. airstrikes will actually intensify the chaos in Syria, not alleviate it.

One of the take-aways from the President’s speech tonight is that this issue or crisis will drag on for much longer.  Diplomacy is a slow process; civilians will continue to die; waves of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) will continue to flow within and outside Syria; and all the while the clock is ticking for Russia, Syria, and Iran to finalize the proposed deal with the U.S. with some U.N. involvement.  That will take a long time, and all the efforts might still come to naught.

Will the U.S. military remain mobilized while the clock ticks?  President Obama says yes.  Will important, pressing American domestic issues be addressed and resolved, like the debt ceiling, the budget, Sequestration, Obamacare, and the health of the economy in general?  If the Syria crisis remains in crisis status in the eyes of the U.S. President and Congress, then we can be assured that those pressing domestic issues will be placed on the backburner, and kicked down the road.

The most important component of the Obama plan and strategy is the word “deterrence.”  If chemical weapons are dismantled and removed out of Syria, then what?  Will that deter Assad from killing his own people?  Not likely.

If the U.S. carries out the airstrikes against Syria, will this action deter Assad from killing his own people?  Not likely.  The targeted strikes might degrade Assad’s capability to use WMDs, but certainly he will not wave a white flag and declare a ceasefire.  He might even try to crush the resistance even harder.

A big picture, long-term vision in the plan and strategy for Syria must be considered, for not just deterring Assad from using WMDs, but for comprehensive, sustainable conflict resolution.

The U.S. must illustrate that the goalpost remains at R2P, and not a new yardstick, or “red line,” of civilian suffering only by use of chemical weapons unleashed against them.

War is counterproductive for all parties involved, including the U.S., Iran, Russia, and Syria.  Sun Tzu said, “All war is deception.”

The bottom line from this speech, in very simple terms, is that it’s all about the geopolitical chess game with Iran.  Who will shout “checkmate” first is anyone’s guess.

Hayat Alvi, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the National Security Affairs Department at the U.S. Naval War College.  The views expressed are personal.





Many Pakistanis Side with the Taliban against Malala

21 07 2013

Malala_Yousafzai_addresses_UN_295x200
Pakistani Taliban Swat

Malala Yousefzai wrote and delivered an outstanding speech at the United Nations last week.  Yet, many in the cyber world of comments, tweeting, and hot air dispensing were not only dissatisfied, but missed the heart of her message completely.  Instead, many nitpicked about how she should have done X, Y, or Z, and not A, B, or C, including, among many other criticisms, supposedly her failure to sufficiently glorify Islam and/or the Prophet Muhammad.  This is very typical of myopic Muslims who time and again fail to receive important messages as the one Malala is conveying, and instead focus on – no, obsess about – the trivial and peripheral nonsense that they can pick on endlessly like mindless vultures.  Why do we bother pondering the reasons why the Muslim world is not progressing?  If only they would actually take her advice about getting a decent education and using their intellect for the greater good!  But that might be asking too much.  It’s much more convenient to blame others for all your problems.

Pakistan is already overflowing with conspiracy theories pertaining to Malala’s UN sponsorship for the speech.  Some ridiculous conjectures include CIA support for her activism, and even farfetched suggestions that the CIA is the one that actually shot her in the head in order to “make Pakistan look bad.”  Let’s be frank here, does Pakistan really need outside help to look any worse?  It’s not exactly the best example for “good governance” for the past decades, and some would even say since the country’s birth.  Besides, blaming outside forces for all their woes is really getting old.  And, let’s stoop to yet a deeper low and chastise a young girl for what – getting shot in the head?  For taking a refreshingly nonviolent stand against extremism and ignorance?  For initiating activism for girls’ education in Pakistan?  Yes, she deserves to be shot for all that, some actually would say!

Then came the letter to Malala from a high-ranking Taliban commander, which could not possibly be out of embarrassment.  The Taliban are not known for being embarrassed about anything they do.  Clearly, he saw a PR disaster as a result of Malala’s global stature.  According to the New York Times, the 4-page letter – “was signed by the militant Adnan Rashid, a former Pakistani Air Force officer who took part in an attempt to assassinate General Pervez Musharraf a decade ago and escaped from prison last year, in the biggest jailbreak in Pakistani history.”  Yes, he is an esteemed character indeed, and he represents a segment of Pakistan’s armed forces no less.  What exactly does he want to convey to Malala?

Adnan Rashid explains in the letter that the Taliban shot Malala, not because of her activism and advocacy for girls’ education, but rather her “smear campaign” against the Taliban.  He admonishes “English” education and then he says:

“I advise you to come back home, adopt the Islamic and Pushtoon culture, join any female Islamic madrassa near your home town, study and learn the book of Allah, use your pen for Islam and plight of Muslim ummah and reveal the conspiracy of tiny elite who want to enslave the whole humanity for their evil agendas in the name of new world order.”

The Taliban enslaved the Swat Valley, using brutality and force against locals to comply with their distorted policies.  The Taliban never hesitate to kill, maim, and brutalize civilians, and in his own words, they can’t even take criticism (i.e., “Malala’s smear campaign”) from a teenager!  By his own admission, the Taliban shot her in the head because she criticized them.  And, he claims the assassination attempt had nothing to do with her education advocacy, but yet he emphasizes that she must attend only a female madrassa that teaches nothing useful for individual and social progress and development.

Exactly which ‘ummah’ is he talking about?  Is it the one in which Shias, Ahmadis, and other sectarian and religious minorities are not only excluded, but even violently persecuted?  Is it the one in which schoolgirls get acid thrown in their faces for daring to get an education?   Is it the puritanical ummah that hates and fears females and anyone and any ideology that does not conform to its own brand?  Is it the ummah that is being forced on civilians at gunpoint and with threats of beheadings and amputations?  Is it that great ummah in which the Taliban carry out suicide bombings killing scores of civilians, in order to impose their own “new world order”?  Hypocrisy thy name is the Taliban!

The greater travesty is that many in Pakistan are embracing the Taliban’s messages and reactions.  The fact that the Taliban’s asinine victimization claims are touching a chord in Pakistani society, to the extent that many are reviling Malala, is a deeply troubling commentary about the state of affairs in Pakistan.

Pakistan is afflicted with much more than just geopolitical complexities; it is clearly in deep psychological crisis and confusion about its national identity, internal contradictions, violent dissent, and the rise and empowerment of militancy, extremism, and militarism in nearly all aspects of society.  Many Pakistanis obsess with blaming outside forces for all their troubles, yet they ignore their self-inflicted social ills, including violent misogyny, debilitating poverty, and gross corruption and incompetence of political leaders.  The greatest casualty in all this social/psychological turmoil is something so basic and essential to survival and progress:  common sense.

Hayat Alvi, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the National Security Affairs Department at the US Naval War College.  The views expressed are personal.





Human Rights Laws Apply to Everyone

27 01 2012

Troubling reports are coming out of the Middle East and North Africa about detention and torture and killings of various groups and individuals.  Nearly a year ago, the international community approved NATO’s no-fly zone in Libya on the basis of the “Responsibility to Protect” civilians from violence (known as the R2P mandate).

Now, we are hearing reports of detention, torture, and in some cases deaths of alleged pro-Qaddafi loyalists.  According to a report posted on the Shabab Libya (Libyan Youth Movement) website, entitled “Canada Blasts Libya over Torture Reports” –

“Amnesty International said several detainees have died after being subjected to torture in recent weeks and months, and cited wide-spread, ill-treatment of Gadhafi loyalists.

Doctors Without Borders said it was pulling out of the city of Misrata because some detainees were brought for care only to make them fit for further interrogation…

‘There’s torture, extrajudicial executions, rape of both men and women,’ Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, told The Associated Press.

‘Something has to be done immediately to assist the authorities for the state to take control of these detention centers.’

This is a terrible blemish on the Libyan interim government, although some would argue that the blemish actually appeared with the manner in which Colonel Qaddafi was abused and killed.  As bad as he was, and despite all the blood on his hands, it was imperative for the Libyan rebels to resist the temptation to stoop to his level of gross barbarity.

No doubt there is deep anger and thirst for revenge in the region, including in Syria, after an exceptionally bloody week there.  However, in the long run, it would be counterproductive for the very groups who have sought freedom and justice to resort to the same tactics of torture, abuse, and extrajudicial detentions and sentencing, especially in a post-regime change context.  Ultimately, they will lose their moral legitimacy, as they will have blurred the lines between themselves and the tyrannical regimes they have been pitted against.  Amnesty International and Doctors without Borders did the right thing.  Everyone must be held under scrutiny, not just the regimes.  No one is above the principles and laws of human rights.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.





Catch-22 in Syria

19 01 2012

Foreign Affairs Correspondent Jonathan Miller (for ITN Channel 4 News, London) reports:  “Omar Shakir, the opposition activist in Homs, told Channel 4 News:  ‘We are hoping and trying not to drift into civil war, but only international action will prevent it.  If the regime continues its murderous violence, we will have to defend ourselves.’  Both sides are going for broke.”

This is obviously a catch-22 situation for both the anti-Assad activists and opposition groups, as well as for the Assad regime, and even for the international community.  Hypothetically, if there is an R2P (“Responsibility to Protect” civilians) mandate implemented by the UN in Syria, much like the Libya case, there is no guarantee that civil war will not occur.  In fact, that is exactly what happened in Libya.  And, as far as I can tell, the early stirrings of civil war have already rippled inside Syria.

Yes, the odds against the Assad regime will stack up upon applying the R2P mandate, assuming it involves a no-fly zone and NATO-led airstrikes, as in Libya.  But, it does not mean that the civil war would be any less bloody.

In fact, the Assad regime will have the opportunity to accuse external powers of interfering in Syria’s internal affairs, and he’ll no doubt point his finger to them and say, “See, I told you it was foreign agitators all along” (not that the opposition will believe him, of course!).

Syria faces a delicate dance, because, unlike Libya, the Syrian government has strong allies, Iran and Russia to name the top two.  And, the Assad regime can manipulate proxies in Lebanon to widen the conflict.  The stakes are extremely high for the opposition groups as well as the Assad regime.  The international community’s potential role can either be a game-changer, or the fuse that further intensifies civil war in Syria.  It could be another Lebanon.  It’s two sides of the same coin:  It can either offer Assad opportunities to exploit foreign involvement, or it can ultimately be the nail in his coffin.  I’m guessing, sadly, that one thing Syria will not face a shortage of is shrouds and coffins.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.





The Qaddafi Template in Syria

13 01 2012

In his latest public speech, Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad sounded a lot more like the late Colonel Qaddafi, who threatened to crush his opponents mercilessly.  Where Qaddafi threatened to go door-to-door, house-to-house, and alley-to-alley – and made good on his threats – Assad is now saying he will crush his opponents with an “iron hand.”  Assad started off in the early stages of the Syrian uprising sounding very delusional and detached from the reality on the ground, to the point of making ridiculous claims in his interview with Barbara Walters a few weeks ago.  He attempted to dissociate his presidency from the authority and responsibility of giving orders to, and controlling, the state security forces.  But, he fooled no one.

However, Assad’s latest 110-minute speech in Damascus manifests a shift in his rhetoric towards an even more threatening stance, which by the way contradicts what he said in the Walters interview, and now puts him in a similar light as Qaddafi.  Whereas Qaddafi referred to the opposition as “rats, cockroaches, and Al Qaeda terrorists on drugs,” Assad labeled his opposition as “terrorists, murderers, criminals.”

The critical question for the international community is whether or not the “R2P” (Responsibility to Protect civilians) UN mandate applies to the Syrian case.  With 5,000+ casualties (mostly civilians), the protesters in Syria have been pleading with the international community to apply the R2P mandate and protect them from Assad’s ruthless crackdown.

But, Syria is not Libya, and even in Libya, with its much smaller size and less formidable military compared to Syria, it took NATO and the rebels several long months to achieve their missions, and for the regime to fall.  Syria is a different nut to crack.  You can compare the military strength between Syria and Libya at Global Firepower:  http://www.globalfirepower.com/.  Plus, one must consider Syria’s powerful allies, Iran and Russia, as a January 10th article in the Globe and Mail describes:

“The Syrian President still has powerful allies like Russia, five of whose naval vessels docked on the weekend at the Syrian port of Tartous, where the Russians maintain a base.”

Nonetheless, Assad clearly is not applying lessons learned from the 2011 Arab uprisings and revolts.  Perhaps denial and delusions of grandeur and invincibility are in the DNA of dictators.

NOTE:  Everything I write in this blog constitutes my personal opinions and views.








Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,462 other followers