Obama Seeks Legal Grounds to Intervene in Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright August 26, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                      

             Reluctant to get embroiled in another Mideast war, President Barack Obama seeks the “legal” justification to intervene in Syria, knowing full well he won’t get it in the U.N. Security Council.  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made clear Russian opposition to U.S. military intervention, buying Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s excuse that “neurotoxic” weapons were used by rebel forces.  It wouldn’t matter to Moscow whether or not Sarin nerve gas packed artillery shells had al-Assad’s fingerprints all over the shrapnel.  Russia backs the al-Assad government because it’s their largest arms’ contract in the Middle East.  While they believe the regime to follow would be more disruptive to the region, the use of chemical weapons crosses what Secretary of State John Kerry calls “moral obscenity.”  Obama has been reluctant to intervene because of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.

             U.S. public opinion strongly opposes military intervention in Syria whether or not al-Assad used Sarin nerve gas.  Jaded by years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public no longer accepts former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of “preemptive war.”  Ravaged by a stubbornly sluggish economy, a Reuters/Ipsos poll indicated 60% of the U.S. public opposes military action in Syria.   While pushed to intervene by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and other conservatives on Capitol Hill, including ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Obama remains reluctant to do the heavy lifting.  He might be persuaded with enough assurances from the U.K., France and other EU and Mideast allies, to engage in a Libya-type operation where a U.S.-led coalition toppled Aug. 22, 2011 strongman Muammar Gaddafi. 

             Backed by Saudi Arabia and a host of terror organizations, the Syrian civil war has raged since March 11, 2011, killing an estimated 100,000 civilians, displacing more than a million to neighboring countries.  “The United States is looking at all options regarding the situation in Syria.  We’re working with out allies and the international community,” Hagel told the press in Jakarta, Indonesia.  More than determining whether or not chemical weapons were used, the Pentagon must calculate the amount of force needed to topple al-Assad.  When force becomes inevitable, like it was in Afghanistan, Libya or Iraq, U.S. officials usually give the dictators enough time to hightail it out of town.  Without his military to save his hide, it’s doubtful al-Assad won’t make arrangements for asylum in some sympathetic African or South American country before an angry mobs storms his presidential place.

             Once the fireworks begin, al-Assad knows that it’s going to be difficult to escape.  Before the Obama givexs the green light to the carrier task force off the Syrian coast, it won’t take long to degrade the Syrian military to the point the regime can no longer defend itself.  When the Syrian government blamed Israel for giving terrorists chemical weapons, you knew desperation had set in.  “We are analyzing the intelligence.  And we will get the facts.  And if there is any action taken, it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification,” said Hagel, knowing full well that the U.N. Security Council won’t back any military action against al-Assad.  Kerry knows what he’s up against in the U.N. Security Council with Russia and China.  “By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that have been manufactured, it is undeniable,” said Kerry.

             Despite the ongoing U.N. inspections, U.S. officials have already determined that the government—whether directly or indirectly—sponsored the Sarin nervous gas attack that asphyxiated 355 civilians last Wed., Aug. 21.  “Make no mistake, President [Barack] Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use world’s more heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people,” said Kerry, confirming that contingency planning was well underway.  When Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds  March 16, 1988 at Halabja, the world sat idly by at the end of the nearly 10-year-long Iran-Iraq War.  In the waning days of the Reagan administration, the U.S. took no position about Saddam’s poison gas attack.  With the world watching, the U.S. can’t take a pass this time around.  “Nothing today is more serious and nothing is receiving more scrutiny,” said Kerry.

             When Paris-based Doctors Without Borders confirmed vast numbers of deaths in East Damascus by poison gas asphyxiation Aug. 21, Obama can’t let the “red line” pass without damage to U.S. prestige and credibility.  However much the U.S. takes the lead for an international coalition, the main consideration is what was missing in Iraq:  An interim government and exit strategy.  Since multiple Saudi-backed terror groups have joined the so-called “legitimate” rebel groups, like the Gen. Salim Idris’ Syrian National Coalition, a post-al-Assad Syria could see competing factions.   Once the U.S. gets rid of al-Assad, the real heavy lifting begins picking a U.S. and U.N.-backed government and clearing out remaining terror groups.  U.S and U.N. officials have all the legal grounds they need to end al-Assad’s command.  What they don’t have is a real post-al-Assad plan to assure political stability.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.