With the recent chemical massacre in Syria, the West seems ready to respond with overt force for the first time in Syria’s 2-years-and-counting civil war. US warships have been moving into the region, Turkey is planning for a possible Syrian counterattack, and the rhetoric has taken on a threatening tone, shifting from “if” to “what.”
The US, France, the UK, and, to a lesser extent, Germany seem ready to spearhead another Libya-style military intervention. Syria’s air-defense network is significantly stronger than Gidaffi’s was, making air strikes potentially more costly than the West would like, and I really don’t think that the West has any appetite to put boots on the ground (aside from SpecOps units who may or may not already be there), but a campaign of long-range missile strikes is looking more and more likely.
What’s interesting is that, according to the BBC, rebel groups with an Islamist tint to them are duck-and-covering at this news, warning their members not to congregate in large groups. So just who are we shooting at, and who are we helping? The FSA has claimed that it still hasn’t received any weapons from the West. Not that I believe them, but that’s what they’re saying. So who are we planning on empowering if we knock over Assad?
Which brings us to the question of scope. Will any upcoming attacks be limited and surgical, or if we’re in for a penny, will that bring us in for a pound? Small-scale strikes may serve to consolidate local support for the Assad regime, so it would seem to make sense to go all-in. Of course, we still have not been given explicit objectives for any possible military interventions. I think that the White House has already publicly ruled out regime change, so what are we after? The destruction of the Assad regime, or just it’s ability to launch chemical attacks? I feel like we’re going to see a more targeted campaign than some are calling for.
Russia is absolutely irate over the idea, but this strong diplomatic front is just cover for the fact that, if the West does get directly involved in the Syrian civil war, Russia will do very little about it. While they may ramp up their logistical support for the Assad regime and it’s war effort, I don’t think that Russia will start shooting at us over it.
Russia is very, very good at controlling events and keeping other world powers at bay within their own geographical backyard, but not so good at getting their way outside of it. Syria falls into a funny little grey zone. Either way, I can only see Russia increasing their support of the Assad regime if the West launches a direct attack.
Of course, the elephant in the room is Iran. Neither Russian nor Iran wants to see Tehran's cat's paw in Damascus fall, and the idea of a Western presence that close to home worries them even more. If not for our antagonistic relationship with Iran, I don't think that the US would have as strong an interest in getting involved against the Assad regime. The Saudis and Qataris have been spurring Westerns involvement from the start, and I suspect that we've been supporting their arming of rebel groups.
Will we hit Syria by Labor Day? Will we be holding our cookouts in the shadow of yet another war overseas? Only time will tell, but they sure are acting like it’s going to happen.
Hands up, protect yourselves at all times out there, this has been the Rabbit Punch.
No comments:
Post a Comment