The U.S. and Syria, Part Two: The U.S. Was Not Defeated

  

     As of this writing, the U.N. has confirmed that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons, Sarin gas, on his own people.

     During this crisis, Secretary of State John Kerry made an offhand remark about Syria giving up its chemical weapons, and here, Vladimir Putin of Russia jumped in to take advantage of this situation, stating that he and Russia will help make it possible.  With that, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia and John Kerry got together and within days, reached an agreement that Syria gives a full account of their weapons for the U.N. to remove and destroy them.  The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China) have also drafted a resolution to make sure Syria keeps its part of the bargain.

     There is still a few rough spots in the agreement that still need to be settled.  Russia objects that if Syria fails to comply, the U.S. and France will reserve the right to take military action.  Russia and China would veto any resolution to do so, but that option is still on the table, and there are still U.S. Navy warships awaiting orders to fire missiles at Syria should it become necessary.

      Because of this resolution, many U.S. officials, especially those leaning towards the Right, feel that Obama is weak, and allowed himself to be taken in by Putin, handing him, and Russia, prestige, while the U.S. appears to have back down on this crisis.  The Wall Street Journal labels Obama as weak and feels that the U.S. has been defeated by letting Syria off easy and allowing Assad to remain in power.

     I beg to differ.

     I think Obama did the right thing, and should Syria follow through with its end of the deal, it will show the world that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.  Assad may have gotten off easy, for now, and may keep in position in power, but that’s beside the point.

     As stated, the U.S., still has warships out in the Mediterranean, with missiles still pointed at Syria, and should Assad renege on his part of the bargain, they will be fired at Syria.  Nobody is telling us to get our warships out of there.

     Russia, now that it has prestige once again, has to make sure that Syria keeps their part of the bargain.  I am aware the Russia does supply some rogue nations with weapons, and I am also aware that what they do, they do to their advantage, sometimes to the detriment to the rest of the world, and they don’t always keep their part of any bargain, but should Assad use chemical weapons again, the Russians will lose whatever international respect they may have recently gained.  

     Assad, now that he has agreed to give up his chemical weapons, has to keep his part of the bargain.  I know of the rebukes.  “The U.S. is letting Assad stay in power and he’s going unpunished.”  Well, maybe, but since the U.N. has now confirmed that chemical weapons were used, Assad, if he did use them, can no longer do so.  If he does, all bets are off, and he will be attacked, and he, Russia, and the world know this.  In addition, even if Assad does remain in power, he will still have to deal with the uprising by his own people, and that is not about to end anytime soon.

     So where is the humiliation for the U.S.?  I don’t see any humiliation, embarrassment, or defeat.  On the contrary, we won without firing a shot.  Should Syria live up to it’s part of the bargain, we will show the world that the use of chemical weapons are not tolerated, even if Assad remains in power, and even if Assad did use them once.  He cannot use them again.

     If the U.S. were to get involved in Syria, we would be bogged down in a war with no exit strategy.  Not only would American lives be lost, it would destroy our economy, not to mention the respect from the world we still maintain.  It would have been a disaster, and that is where our defeat would have lied.  Also, in many cases, the rebels are no better than their oppressors, themselves resorting to ruthless tactics and killing innocent people.  If there is a right side, we would not have found it.  Many, perhaps most, of the rebels themselves would fight against us, not with us.  We, the U.S., always end up taking the wrong side in wars, even when our intentions are good.  There would have been more atrocities on our part, and we would be hated by the world more, not less.  Once again, we would be stuck in a mire.

     It never pays to get involved in any war in the Middle East.  We no longer need their oil, and these countries, including Syria, don’t want us in there anyway.  The Syrians themselves have stated this.  Also, don’t forget Iraq and Afghanistan.

     No, we were not defeated or humiliated.  On the contrary, if the deal goes through, we will have won.   Russia has to watch itself and Syria has to give up their chemical weapons, which is what we wanted, and with our ships still in the Mediterranean, should something go wrong.  We, the U.S., and the U.N., will be watch to see if Russia and Syria keep their part of the bargain. 

     We got the best part of the deal.

The U.S. and Syria, as of September 2, 2013

          President Barack Obama is in what will probably be the toughest situation of his presidency, and how he reacts will either make or break his place in history.  He may end up making an unpopular decision that history will regard as a wise decision, or vice versa.

     From the title, I am of course discussing the situation in Syria.  As of this moment, President Obama is pondering on bombing Syria as punishment for using poison gas on its own people.  President Assad, whom many of the Syrians have been rebelling against for the past two years, has been tyrannical, and is fighting these rebels to preserve his place in power.  The rebels were winning at first, but Assad has struck back, using his military to strike back at the rebels, reclaiming much of the territory that the rebels captured.

     There are those around the globe who support these rebels, hoping that they would succeed in this endeavor.  Some of them hoping that the U.S. will come in, aid these rebels, and drive out Assad, just like they did Saddam Hussain in Iraq, with mixed results.

      Obama has tried very hard to stay out of this mess, and for good reason.  First, the American people are weary from being in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (2003 through 2011 in Iraq), costing taxpayers money, not to mention human lives, and would now very much like to concentrate on fixing their own economy.  Obama, during his first presidential campaign, has vowed to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not to get us into any more wars.

     Obama is now in a different situation.  When one becomes president, he or she finds that being in office is not so easy as running for it, and it is not so easy to keep one’s promises to change things.  He has a lot of outside forces to deal with, starting with Congress, and it gets even tougher when that particular Congress is determined to see you fail, at all costs, and that is the situation that Obama is in today.

     Obama tolerated the Syrian civil war, and he tried, with success, to stay out of it.  He did warn Assad that if he used chemical weapons, the U.S. will be forced to take military action.  That is the red line the Obama drew.

     The Red Line has been crossed.  Masses of people were killed, and there is a suspicion that chemical weapons, mainly Sarin gas, was used.  Assad denies it, and it has been said that the rebels themselves did it, and others say that there is no proof the these weapons were used.  The U.N. was in, examined the bodies, and as of this moment, they just left the country.

     As stated, many say that there is no proof that chemical weapons were used.  Syria, however does have them, and the manufacturing and storage facilities for them.  If they were not used, how did all these people die?  What was used to kill them?  How do you explain this mass killing, with all bodies not having a mark on them, if Sarin gas wasn’t used?  If they were used, should we go in?  Perhaps the Air Force should go in and destroy these plants and storage facilities.

     It was during the first World War that poison gas was used on both sides, and the outcome was so horrible, that at the Geneva Convention, held in 1925, all sides agreed that chemical weapons will not be used in any future war.

     Well, should it be found that Assad did use them, and evidence points out that they did;  so what do we do?  Should we bomb Syria as a message to Assad not to use them again?  Should Obama decide to do so, he, and the U.S., will be condemned for being war mongers and bullies.

     What if Obama decides NOT to go into Syria?  Will he be condemned by the rest of the world for looking the other way and doing nothing while masses of innocent people are being killed?  Will he be compared to those who stood by during the Hitler regime while six million people went to the gas chambers?  There is a Syrian family that lives in my vicinity that thinks just that of Obama, and wants the U.S. military to go in and bomb Syria for reasons I have already stated.  There is also the danger that other dictators that possess chemical weapons will use them with impunity, both on their own people and on other countries, and this act of inaction will be what triggers it off;  i.e. chemical weapons will become conventional weapons.

      Suppose Obama does decide to go in and bomb Syria.  Will the world condemn the U.S. for being war mongers and bullies, bombing innocent people?  Will we lose what’s left of our credibility, especially after invading Iraq?  If Assad killed 100,000 Syrians by conventional means, why should we go in when these weapons only killed about 1400 Syrians, with 400 of them being children?  Does that make sense?

     Either way, Obama will be condemned.  He is in a very tough situation.  What can be accredited to him now is deciding to obtain the approval of Congress before venturing out there.  Whatever is decided, Obama will be judged by the world in a very harsh manner.  It will be up to history to come up with the final verdict.

     My own opinion on all this is:  One, there is no way we can fix the situation in Syria and make peace there, no matter what we do.  Only the Syrian people can do that.  If we go in, it will be worse for everybody, especially us.  Two, wars cost money, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot afford to get involved in anyone else’s problems, problems that do not concern us.  Three, the Syrian people themselves have stated that, in spite of what is happening, they do not want us coming in there at all.  They want to solve their own problems, and keep the rest of the world at bay.  Four, that situation is so complex, we don’t know whose side to be on;  we just may end up choosing the wrong side, something that we are very good at doing.  Last, if we are going to attack Syria, destroy the chemical weapons plants and storage facilities, and then get out.  That, at least, will discourage other dictators from using theirs.

     It is my own conclusion that we stay out, completely.  Since we are becoming more energy independent, we should try and stay out of all the Middle East and its affairs, and let them settle it themselves, if they have the ability to do so.  They don’t want us in there anyway, and no one else can do it for them, especially the U.S.