The Syrian Dilemma: Uncle Sammy "Can Do" No More

The Syrian Dilemma: Uncle Sammy "Can Do" No More
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
September 4, 2013

Summary: Chemical weapons in Syria have killed over 1000 people. The U.S. began banging the war drums against Syria but suddenly stopped. Now the decision to go to war or not has been turned over to Congress. US power has gradually declined. Uncle Sammy still covets the role of world policeman. But it is increasingly a case of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Full text below:

Chemical weapons in Syria have killed over 1000 people. The U.S. began banging the war drums against Syria but suddenly stopped. Now the decision to go to war or not has been turned over to Congress. US power has gradually declined. Uncle Sammy still covets the role of world policeman. But it is increasingly a case of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

The incident inflicted heavy casualties. The corpses of innocent children shocked the world. The U.S. began by referring to the Syrian government as murderous. President Obama initially vowed that the United States would take action. But then surprisingly his rhetoric began winding down. The U.S. President clearly does not need Congressional approval to launch an attack. Obama nevertheless sought approval from Congress, which will probably vote on the matter by the middle of this month.

There are many reasons for Obama's about face. First, domestic opinion was vehemently opposed to war. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were decade-long quagmires for the United States. The loss of life and financial burden was immense. They exacted a heavy toll on the U.S. military, physically and psychologically. Death by suicides have exceeded deaths in combat. Now, finally, the US has managed to extricate itself. It is no longer willing to immerse itself in that cesspool. The U.S. media feels that a declaration of war will have a difficult time passing in Congress. Obama's Democrats constitute a minority in the House of Representatives. On top of which, the public is weary of war.

Secondly, the international community is singing a very different tune. Russia and Mainland China have vetoed the use of force in the UN, making any such resolution impossible. NATO is unwilling to participate in an attack. Even the United Kingdom, which has long been faithful, which has always backed the United States, is opposed. The British Parliament flatly rejected Prime Minister David Cameron's proposed use of force. Most EU countries do not support war. Only French President Francois Hollande was willing to lend a hand. But rumors are the French public may demand parliamentary approval.

Thirdly, the United States does not want to send in ground troops. It fears another nightmarish war. Therefore it will probably only fire missiles as part of a limited attack. In that case, toppling the Assad regime will be difficult. The US is more concerned about its status as the world's policeman than in upholding justice. As soon as Obama took office he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. He withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. These were important achievements. But now he wants to use force and begin shooting. He needs endorsements and support.

In fact, the domestic situation in Syria is complex. The ruling and opposition parties belong to different religious sects, Shia and Sunni. Outside meddling, especially by the U.S., could make the situation worse. Assad is militarily strong. That is why he has been able to fight the rebels for two years without falling. The rebel camp has too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Al-Qaeda forces dominate. The U.S. fears that if it rides to the rescue, it may help its sworn enemy.

Since the Cold War, the United States has been playing the role of world policeman, even as it expanded its sphere of influence. But such "Captain America" style actions in the Arab world have often resulted in humiliation. How much have they actually helped the local population? That is hard to say.

After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the U.S. supported Afghan guerrillas fighting the USSR. Among those who received CIA funding and military training, were members of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda organization, which later launched the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The United States found and killed bin Laden in May 2011. But it the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda remains.

After 911, U.S. troops in Afghanistan overthrew the Taliban regime that had been harboring bin Laden. In March 2003, the US claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and destroyed the regime of Saddam Hussein. Great Britain and other countries waged war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein was captured in December 2003. He was hanged in December 2006. But no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever were ever found. The U.S. has a record of such blunders. Now people are questioning the legitimacy of the use of force against Syria.

The United States paid a high price for these two wars. The Iraq war cost 662 billion US. The United States has been battered by the financial crisis. Its economy is in a prolonged downturn. The ruling and opposition parties are both afraid of war. They are in no mood to set foot on another Middle Eastern battlefield.

The Arab world is very different from the Western world in its religious and cultural beliefs. Each country has its own tribal, sectarian, and political factions, Add to this widespread anti-American sentiment. Even if the United States is sincere, any help it can provide will be limited. If it insists on intervening, it may make matters worse. It may intensify any grievances the local inhabitants might already have against the United States.

Over 100,000 people have been killed in Syria. Over 200,000 people have been uprooted. This is a man-made disaster. Is the United Nations is willing to become more actively involved? Is it willing to impose a cease fire? First freeze the situation, then stop the killing. Put pressure on Assad to negotiate a peace. At least protect people from poison gas. But given the current international situation, the United States can no longer lay down the law. Uncle Sammy has gotten decrepit. It must must now spend more time communicating and negotiating with other countries .

中時電子報 新聞
中國時報 　2013.09.04
社論－老大哥不行了 美難解敘利亞困局
本報訊

    　敘利亞發生千餘人死亡的化武攻擊事件，但美國對敘利亞擂起的戰鼓卻再衰三竭，現在要交給國會定奪，開火與否還要再往後拖。氣力漸衰的美國，想扮演世界警察的老大哥角色，已經愈來愈力不從心了。

    　這起事件傷亡慘重，無辜稚兒屍體橫陳的畫面更是震撼全球。美國一開始即指敘利亞政府下的毒手，歐巴馬總統矢言美國必須採取行動。但之後卻放緩了動作，明明美國總統可以不經國會同意即決定發動攻擊，但歐巴馬還是轉而尋求國會同意，大概到本月中旬才會進行表決。

    　歐巴馬的決策轉折有其背景，第一，國內民意非常不挺再捲入一場戰爭，阿富汗和伊拉克之戰讓美國陷入10年泥淖，人命損失及財政負擔都極大，對美軍身心造成沉重壓力，自殺死亡人數已經超過了死於戰火的人數。好不容易現在快抽身了，實在不願再淌一趟渾水。美國媒體認為動武案可能不容易在國會過關，不只是歐巴馬的民主黨在眾院居少數，也因為民意強烈厭戰。

    　其次是國際社會也唱反調，聯合國在俄羅斯、中國反對下無法通過動武決議，北約不願共同發動攻擊，向來忠實力挺美國的英國，國會斷然否決了首相卡麥隆的動武提案。其他歐盟國家大多不支持，只有法國總統奧朗德願意助拳，但如今法國內部也傳出要求交付國會的聲音。

    　第三，美國既然不想派地面部隊，免得陷入另一場戰爭惡夢，於是大概只能發射幾枚飛彈，作「有限」的攻擊，那麼勢將難以扳倒阿塞德政權，對自己世界警察的地位作點交代的成分還大於維護正義。歐巴馬一上任就得了諾貝爾和平獎，又把從伊、阿撤軍作為重要政績，如今若要動武開火，總要多拉些背書支持。

    　其實敘利亞內部情勢複雜，執政與反抗分屬什葉與遜尼不同教派，外力─尤其是美國─的介入，未必會讓局面好轉。阿塞德的軍力堅強，因此能和反抗軍鏖戰兩年而不倒。反抗陣營內部多頭馬車，基地組織勢力又在其中坐大，美國忌憚出手相救，也是擔心幫到了死對頭。

    　從冷戰以來，美國一直在扮演世界警察的同時擴張勢力版圖，不過這個「美國隊長」在阿拉伯世界的行動，有時卻灰頭土臉，對當地民眾有多大幫助也很難說。

    　1979年蘇聯入侵阿富汗之後，美國支援阿富汗游擊隊抗俄，而當時曾經接受資助與中央情報局武力訓練的，就包括了後來在2001年發動911恐怖攻擊的「基地」組織首腦賓拉登。即使美國在2011年5月找到並擊斃賓拉登，仍然無法徹底清除「基地」的恐怖威脅。

    　911事件後，美國出兵阿富汗，推翻窩藏賓拉登的塔里班政權。2003年3月以伊拉克哈珊政權擁有大規模毀滅性武器為由，與英國等國家發動伊拉克戰爭。哈珊在2003年12月被捕獲，2006年12月死在絞刑台上，但結果根本找不到任何大規模毀滅性武器。美國既有搞烏龍的前科，現在對敘動武的正當性也受到質疑。

    　不過美國也為這兩場戰爭付出了高昂代價，伊戰花費甚至達6620億美元，在美國因金融海嘯重創經濟、景氣陷入長期低迷後，朝野都已聞戰色變，無心也無力再踏入另一個中東戰場。

    　何況，阿拉伯世界由於宗教、文化、思維模式與西方有相當差距，每個國家內部又各有其部族、教派、政治派系等因素，加上普遍有反美情緒，美國就算有誠意，能幫上的忙也非常有限。硬要插手的話，反而可能使局勢益發複雜，讓當地民眾對美國的怨氣更深。

    　敘利亞之局，到現在已經超過10萬人喪生，200萬人流離失所，堪稱人間浩劫。如果聯合國願意更積極介入，強制兩造停火，先凍結現狀停止殺戮，施壓阿塞德進行和平談判，至少能保護老百姓免受荼毒。不過目前的國際態勢，已經不是美國可以一呼百諾了。大哥已老，現在必須花更多心力時間與各國溝通協商。