Things are getting clearer today. President Obama is proposing a military action to degrade Assad’s military action while enhancing the rebels’ fighting capacities. Two days ago, we wrote this : “bombing Syria is taking side”. At the time, America didn’t speak the truth story out. If the solution is upgrading rebels artillery of war, then the move has three fatal consequences, at least :
– The first one is the way out through the security council is dead in the waters. This is not an exit plan Russia or China will vote for.
– Two. Syria is heading into a protracted civil war and an open venue for al qaeda’s fighters, besides the rebels, is underway. Al Qaeda wins and unknown consequences in destabilizing the region even more are inevitable. Exactly the opposite of a reasonable exit plan.
– The protracted civil war that is going to take place, in case of strikes, is the best way to worsening the humanitarian situation which is already worrisome.
Is this the extremist’s solution Senators McCain and Graham were advocating for ? Is this Democrat’s Congress women and men dreaming exit plan ? Rebels coming into power without being elected ? What about Syrians being imposed leaders from outside by foreign countries ? This is total « nonsense », to paraphrase Putin.
Here is a citizenry case for the Congress to look upon considering the 5 key points below.
Number One. Democracy.
Contrary to the chat, David Cameron has not lost anything, neither was he humiliated, regarding parliamentarian regime and respect of democracy. He has to consult with the Parliament. And he did well and great here. His only misstep was to declare himself convinced by the evidence of his own joint committee intelligence report, prior to the UN’s team of inspector reports on the ground in Syria. It is understandable to be shocked and emotionnaly overwhelmed by the tolls of deaths on August 21st. Who may not be ? It is really shocking and heartbreaking.
All the barriers have been trampled down with this mass murder killing, for it really was a mass murder ; nobody is disputing that. What is in dispute is the real use of chemical weapons and who are behind this horrible act. In a sense, neither president Obama nor PM David Cameron, flying in support to the American president, are to blame for bursting out in furor and desire of « punishment ». I hate this word.
But emotions rarely provide wise advice.
This is why UK MP’s debate was highly productive in bringing up many many interrogations concerning the past, the present and the future. Some expert’s advice added powerfull stances to that excellent moment of political science and free debate in a living democracy. It was nice hearing the panel of positions and reflections. Such an exercice was missing those latest years, at least since the abusive Iraqi’s 2003 bombings, and political science studies have been granted a high moment and a corpus to study. We should be thankful to PM Cameron and Nick Clegg for that. Not forgetting, with a special mention, Ed Miliband’s defense.
As usual, Britain has come up showing the way to follow in the future. Congratulations ladies and gentlemen.
Number two. « What is the exit plan in Syria » ?
This was a question mark inside the debate from a woman, an expert speaking inside Skynews studios. Of course, the exit plan is Geneva II. The exit plan are the evidence of the UN. The exit plan is the International law. Three phases for the exit plan.
Days before, we were briefed about Geneva II by the special Arab-League envoy and told about the options of sortie.
We also know that the evidence will tell whether or not chemical weapons were used.
Apparently, yes. I can conceed this point, if America, London and Israeli-French backed are right. I will take the risk of putting all my eggs in this single basket.
Who did it ? This is the core of the issue. Suppose the governemental forces did it ? Is the military strike the solution ? No. Military strikes destroy ; they don’t repair anything. Some may argue : by destroying the capacity of Assad’s regime weaponery including WMD, they do. Probably. This is what we heard from the president. But this supposes those destroying military sites detain an exhaustive list of them and their exact location. It supposes also that those surgical strikes will not kill people nearby.
The annoying part of president Obama’s today communication is arming the rebel. What is the purpose ? A regime change ? On his opening remarks in support to his motion, PM Cameron underlined straightly « it was not about regime change ». We don’t know what to think anymore. Regime change or not ?
Number three. Enhancing the state of terror
Question : have the military strikes’ partisans thought about the climate of fear infused in the conflict and how this is going to push people towards an exode : kind of roads to nowhere ; worsening the humanitarian situation which is already critical, according to Nick Clegg and some testimonies ? Quote seen on CNN : “Every 15 seconds, a Syrian becomes a refugee”.
We should not aggravate fear and escalate terror and terrorism. That is exactly what Military strikes threat is accomplishing : increasing the state of terror. This is counterproductive.
Number four. Who is responsible for the use of chemical weapons ?
A response to that question requires another mission of the UN’s investigation team for a longer term – three weeks at a minimum – and a speed up of the momentum. The mission would have a deeper agenda : recensing military plants and chemical weapons’s locations.
Real alternatives to military strikes are available with even more great efficiency. A deeper inquiry is the first step.
A deeper inquiry would also carry on the duty of profiling the case in order to begin to prosecute it.
Number five. Profiling the case in accordance to the respect of the international law.
Who is the beneficiary of the 21st August’s crime ? The Rebels. Paris and Berlin have already opened their hands and cans to them and taken side openly. Coming from the co-leaders of the Eurozone, we will say, the tradition is respected one more time. Rebels would always be welcomed inside those countries. Nothing new. Friends of my friends are my friends.
Saudi Arabia-Emirates-Morocco-Jordan-Turkey’s alliance inside the Arab League are funding Syrian Rebels, or supporting their objective of power-grab without elections, one way or another. Those nations present another particular sign : they are sponsors in France.
Actually Qatar is making bold investments in Paris and inside its suburbs. After the construction of Arab’s Mosques in Big french cities paid for by Saudi Arabia, Qatar is the new banker for young Arabs abandonned in the French suburbians zones alone. Qatar is helping young Arabic immigrants setting small businesses. Good action indeed. French banks don’t lend money to start up a business. That is why creativity, innovation and cutting edge research or experimentation – those bunch of things french reputation of excellency were based upon – are out of French political agenda for a while now.
France is dying of conservatism and nationalism reflexes are back on the stage. The country terribly lacks prospective and a vision forward. They can not even starting thinking about an exit plan in Syria. Where is America going with such an ally past-orientated? I commend this to the Congress : condemning the perpetrators of crimes and there is no need for America to find internationally discredited allies to prove itself right, assuming their Intelligence is not biaised. A justified cause stands by itself.
Democratically speaking, if Congress says NO to the consultation asked by president Obama, it is not an humiliation for the president or a drama. Republicans can’t criticize the president for going at war without consulting them (the case for Lybia) and when they are consulted and answered no, walked away of the vote telling everywhere « the president is humiliated ». It will not be class.
But, we have listened to the Speaker Boehner who is confident his partners will vote for the strikes.
Nancy Pelosi also expressed the same feeling insisting that the murdering of people by chemical weapons is a non civilized action, inhumane and the World had agreed before to punish those responsible for using them to kill people.
With all due respect for Lady Pelosi, punitive mission are also subject to the same critics : uncivilized. There is more : 14 times after, nobody can talk about an emergency or a punition any longer.
Why 14 times without action ? Allies were convinced by now, the rebels they have been backing wearing a mask, would have succeeded their mission of regime change. The scenario went differently : the rebels are sinking under Assad’s forces pressure and may be resorting to chemical weapons was their last chance of getting their heads out of waters. Ask some profiling experts in the Police for help here.
Alan Grayson (Orlando, Florida, Democrate Representative) is against any military strike and will vote NO. Are we going to witness a conflict of generation with the elder voting yes to a military strike and the younger generation NO ? The possibility is not excluded.
Speaking at CNN, the Florida Representative says the strikes could be dangerous, expensive and this is not our problem. In case of humanitarian imperative, will you change your mind ? No, he said. Are you alone to think of voting NO ? Grayson answered NO.
In case of a genocide in Syria, could you change your mind ? NO. This is none of our problem. What about your constituencies ? No chance : they are far away from the debate and from this « abstract concept » which is interesting Washington DC and mainstream medias. American people are concerned by Health Care, Housing, Jobs, Education and so forth.
Alan Grayson insisted the USA is not the World Policeman, the Jury and the Prosecutor.
Dame Nancy Pelosi also tells us a story similar to this : American are thinking this is none of their businesses.
While it may be the case in solidarity with the Humanity and caring after Security and Order in the World, it is also arguable that military strikes, as Alan Grayson recalled it, have never solved anything wherever the US had stroke. Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc…
Boomerang – Senator Mc Cain, the man behind military strike.
Whatever the answer of the Congress to strike Syria military would come to be, Democracy is the Only Winner and this is the Best Part of It. Professor Dumbledore is quote saying something like this : You can find Light amid deepest darkness. Just recall to switch on the light. (Harry Potter).
PM Cameron had switch on the light of Democracy in the darkness of Syrian crisis. Isn’t it Great !
This Democracy Strike surpasses by far, in Power and by Exemplarity, the Military Strike. In a sense, Cameron has initiated Geneva II, unknowingly, leading by example.
Would the American Congress sealed this looking at Democracy first and only, as the way for long term Stability and Peace ?
I suppose there are as many people ready to bet with me as they are to let me die alone with it. Don’t care, I will survive. But, don’t forget to switch the light on wherever you are and whoever you are. And look carefully how the concerns are shifting dramatically to humanitarian conditions of Syrians people the World is discovering only now, after the no vote of the UK MPs and after nearly three years of fighting. Lots of manipulations are working and crossing the scene to kill Geneva II, before it starts.
One thing is to be an effective donor for humanitarian help, as David Cameron mentionned it, the other is to try to use it as an aggravating circumstances in support for a military action. “Every 15 seconds, a Syrian becomes a refugee”. If this is true, we know how to deal with this by pursuing a peace process, on one hand – something at reach : Geneva II – and, by opening humanitarian corridors, on the other hand.
At the end of the day, Whatever happened, this is not the end of the World.
Just because the credibility of America is on balance, for his president promised to act, in case the red line was crossed (John McCain) is not a reason to disdain the UN.
Latest developments at CNN.
« The Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. security interests, said U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.
Hagel told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the attack could embolden other regimes, like North Korea, to use their stockpiles, and encourage other governments to acquire them.
Pressing the administration’s case, Secretary of State John Kerry said « this debate is about the world’s red line — it’s about humanity’s red line — and it’s a line that anyone with a conscience should draw. »
From Reason.com : Syria is Not Iraq, Congressional Authorization Edition. The US war in Iraq was a tragedy, the march toward war in Syria so far is a travesty.