Intervention in Syria: Why?
It has been a long while since I last wrote about Syria. I looked at my own words and I got scared, I never expected to have a bit of reason in what respects to some of the ideas I exposed there. I did not receive criticism nor any type of threatening comment or else. However it scares me to see that some irrational scenario I imagined to some point is now becoming real. It is sad and also annoying to see that certain countries ate unable to get a grip on their past in the sense of learning from their mistakes. In this respect, the United Kingdom, a country that gladly received me for studying and to which I criticise a lot because of recent policies, deserves my applause for the decision they made of not supporting intervention.
The fact of some western countries deciding to intervene in Syria is illogical to me in this century, and moreover after what has happened in all countries that had being intervened in their past. Russia had a really harsh lesson in Afghanistan, Germany had a tough enough one during World War II as well as Italy and, the United States seems to not have enough. These guys were defeated in Vietnam, and Iraq turned into their XXI century Vietnam, I really wonder if some people in there ask themselves about the REAL causes for Al Qaeda or anybody related to such extremism to hit them so hard as they did on September 11.
Syria has now become a wasteland in which everybody do not trust anybody, people are scared and some just want to run away as fast as they can and get out from there and go as far as they are able to. It makes me sad to see that involved parts do not take these things into consideration, it is very clear to me that some Western allies have forgotten their past as both victimaries and victims of war. It is also clear to me that the United States has never really had an invasion in their territory (okey yes, Pearl Harbour...but what would you guys feel if you had Muhajedeen on your face in Los Angeles or in any other US city?). Anyway, I hope the United States gets a bit more reasonable than in 2003, because the way they will pay this might be worse.
Syria is not Kosovo, we have much more actors and interests involved. I believe this is the main reason why intervening in Syria can turn into something really complex and absolutely horrible. The way in which this conflict can grow into something unimaginable and really uncontrallable is being seen as time goes by. Since some countries are supplying and supportingAssad and others are supporting the rebels, then there are two options: either they STOP supplying both sides and let them finish off in the way more suitable for them, either by the basic law of war of 'trace your enemy, analyze him, have a strategy and finish him off' (the weapons insdustry will be totally against this and, countries whose industry is based on this would disagree with it too) or maybe intervne but to put both parts to talk and settle their differences.
The problem now is that China and Russia are sending a very clear and simple message to the United States through their denials for intervention in Syria: 'The world is not yours anymore and you cannot suit governments according to your interests and your preferences'. If the US has not caught the message, then we have a more severe problem. The way they have been conducing their foreign policy based on geopolitics in order to suit their interests and serve their economy is something more than outdated, they saw that wars are a dreadful and non profitable business in 2008, and they have been witnessing since 2003 that thanks to their actions, they have a reaction: the world hates them, this is a horrible but real truth.
Now, getting into Syria under the same excuse they got into Kosovo would be a suicide. I believe they are not considering how others would react. I believe it would not be as simple as 'Just getting all of our forces out and face our enemies or any other country that goes against us' well, the countries that are against intervention do not precisely fit into the 'any country' category, they have almost the same forces as the United States. Actually, as seen in Iraq, it takes more than military and weapons superiority to win a war, getting into Syria would require a sophisticated strategy that would be under constant transformation, but for a good strategy, you need a clear goal, and what goal is this? In my view, any goal they have in mind will not benefit the Syrian people.
In what respects to the religious side of this, what is the point of putting a Sunni regime near a Shiit'e country? That would turn Syria into something like the 38th Parallel or the West Bank, what is the point of turning a country and its borders into a mess just because of the sake of interest? That is not fair for the Syrian people, at all! Second, as far as my common sense in geography leads me, we all know who is the neighbour of Syria after Iraq: Iran and yes, I believe that part of the intention is to counter Iran by restricting its access to the sea, and anyway the US has presence in Pakistan, what is the point of sorrounding Iran? If everything is because of oil, is the cost really worth it?
The rebels have shown that violence is not exclusive from the State, therefore having such extremism governing a country would doom other neighbours such as Lebanon and what to say about Israel. Anyway, in my opinion, Lebanese people would most likely suffer the most severe consequences of having such extreme governments nearby, it would be horrible to have Israel down (constantly bombing them because of Hezbollah and the like hiding in Lebanon) and then have the Sunni extremism up in Syria...what could be worse for the poor Lebanese?
Western allies are not supporting reformists, they are supporting people who can be potential terrorists, if Assad was really the problem, then why he was not removed before? I believe we all could start wondering about that. What did he said or did for being bullied by other allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, he said no to the United States or to any other western country?
Now, let's pretend they put someone of their taste in Syria, then after twenty years, knowing the United States and other Western countries, who do not have friends but only interests, something like what happened with the Muhajideen (disgareements, discontent, etc.) could happen in Syria too and we will have the Homeland Security Department in the United States under alert or emergency again.
It is obvious that times have changed, but to show the uselessness of interventions, let's take a bit of an example of the result of their interventions in Central and South America. In Nicaragua they supported the Somoza regime who agreed with the US 'finish with communism' ambition and was keen to their interests. Then the Sandinistas came and threw him away of power, and Nicaragua ended up being left wing anyway. Did US intervention made a difference? No. In Chile, the same: Allende was murdered eventhough he was chosen democratically and then what? Pinochet came and Chile is still wounded by the dictatorial past and anyway Chile got a left wing President later on. Did intervention had any effect? No.
I could continue with many other examples, but if they attempt to apply this to Syria, supporting extreme factions will cause them inconveniences on the long term. I will add another question: The US lost many troops when Vietnam and, people still have a horrible trauma derived from things like My Lai, apart from other horrors they lived. Did US intervention made any difference in Vietnam anyway? No, because they ended up (and still are) being communist.
I wonder then, will the intervention in Syria lead to any different result from those we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? I do not think so. I just wish that US civilians do not have to pay the price of their government's foreign policy decisions, because there is nothing worse than trying to trace an enemy that it is like a tree's underground roots: you never know where they can be hiding, or who can be supporting them and most importantly, how extended they are. This has made the 'War on Terror' the hardest war that United States has ever fought, because terrorism is not reduced to one or two countries, for it is an international problem and, this makes it impossible to extermine.
Actions have a reaction, this is something they must consider...because terrorism is also a self defence weapon, the deadliest of all, and I believe it can be used again if intervention in Syria is approved. attacks could happen not today, neither tomorrow or next year...but the risk is there. There is nothing more complex and powerful than human nature, and when humans are full of rancour and hate, they can do unimaginable things like what happened on September 11, 2001. The United Kingdom seems to have this very clear, I hope all other Western allies have it too because revenge is a dish that is eaten cold, and revenge for intervention in Syria could come afterwards, just for the sake of human nature and like in 2001, it will be hard or impossible to trace.
The fact of some western countries deciding to intervene in Syria is illogical to me in this century, and moreover after what has happened in all countries that had being intervened in their past. Russia had a really harsh lesson in Afghanistan, Germany had a tough enough one during World War II as well as Italy and, the United States seems to not have enough. These guys were defeated in Vietnam, and Iraq turned into their XXI century Vietnam, I really wonder if some people in there ask themselves about the REAL causes for Al Qaeda or anybody related to such extremism to hit them so hard as they did on September 11.
Syria has now become a wasteland in which everybody do not trust anybody, people are scared and some just want to run away as fast as they can and get out from there and go as far as they are able to. It makes me sad to see that involved parts do not take these things into consideration, it is very clear to me that some Western allies have forgotten their past as both victimaries and victims of war. It is also clear to me that the United States has never really had an invasion in their territory (okey yes, Pearl Harbour...but what would you guys feel if you had Muhajedeen on your face in Los Angeles or in any other US city?). Anyway, I hope the United States gets a bit more reasonable than in 2003, because the way they will pay this might be worse.
Syria is not Kosovo, we have much more actors and interests involved. I believe this is the main reason why intervening in Syria can turn into something really complex and absolutely horrible. The way in which this conflict can grow into something unimaginable and really uncontrallable is being seen as time goes by. Since some countries are supplying and supportingAssad and others are supporting the rebels, then there are two options: either they STOP supplying both sides and let them finish off in the way more suitable for them, either by the basic law of war of 'trace your enemy, analyze him, have a strategy and finish him off' (the weapons insdustry will be totally against this and, countries whose industry is based on this would disagree with it too) or maybe intervne but to put both parts to talk and settle their differences.
The problem now is that China and Russia are sending a very clear and simple message to the United States through their denials for intervention in Syria: 'The world is not yours anymore and you cannot suit governments according to your interests and your preferences'. If the US has not caught the message, then we have a more severe problem. The way they have been conducing their foreign policy based on geopolitics in order to suit their interests and serve their economy is something more than outdated, they saw that wars are a dreadful and non profitable business in 2008, and they have been witnessing since 2003 that thanks to their actions, they have a reaction: the world hates them, this is a horrible but real truth.
Now, getting into Syria under the same excuse they got into Kosovo would be a suicide. I believe they are not considering how others would react. I believe it would not be as simple as 'Just getting all of our forces out and face our enemies or any other country that goes against us' well, the countries that are against intervention do not precisely fit into the 'any country' category, they have almost the same forces as the United States. Actually, as seen in Iraq, it takes more than military and weapons superiority to win a war, getting into Syria would require a sophisticated strategy that would be under constant transformation, but for a good strategy, you need a clear goal, and what goal is this? In my view, any goal they have in mind will not benefit the Syrian people.
In what respects to the religious side of this, what is the point of putting a Sunni regime near a Shiit'e country? That would turn Syria into something like the 38th Parallel or the West Bank, what is the point of turning a country and its borders into a mess just because of the sake of interest? That is not fair for the Syrian people, at all! Second, as far as my common sense in geography leads me, we all know who is the neighbour of Syria after Iraq: Iran and yes, I believe that part of the intention is to counter Iran by restricting its access to the sea, and anyway the US has presence in Pakistan, what is the point of sorrounding Iran? If everything is because of oil, is the cost really worth it?
The rebels have shown that violence is not exclusive from the State, therefore having such extremism governing a country would doom other neighbours such as Lebanon and what to say about Israel. Anyway, in my opinion, Lebanese people would most likely suffer the most severe consequences of having such extreme governments nearby, it would be horrible to have Israel down (constantly bombing them because of Hezbollah and the like hiding in Lebanon) and then have the Sunni extremism up in Syria...what could be worse for the poor Lebanese?
Western allies are not supporting reformists, they are supporting people who can be potential terrorists, if Assad was really the problem, then why he was not removed before? I believe we all could start wondering about that. What did he said or did for being bullied by other allies in the region such as Saudi Arabia, he said no to the United States or to any other western country?
Now, let's pretend they put someone of their taste in Syria, then after twenty years, knowing the United States and other Western countries, who do not have friends but only interests, something like what happened with the Muhajideen (disgareements, discontent, etc.) could happen in Syria too and we will have the Homeland Security Department in the United States under alert or emergency again.
It is obvious that times have changed, but to show the uselessness of interventions, let's take a bit of an example of the result of their interventions in Central and South America. In Nicaragua they supported the Somoza regime who agreed with the US 'finish with communism' ambition and was keen to their interests. Then the Sandinistas came and threw him away of power, and Nicaragua ended up being left wing anyway. Did US intervention made a difference? No. In Chile, the same: Allende was murdered eventhough he was chosen democratically and then what? Pinochet came and Chile is still wounded by the dictatorial past and anyway Chile got a left wing President later on. Did intervention had any effect? No.
I could continue with many other examples, but if they attempt to apply this to Syria, supporting extreme factions will cause them inconveniences on the long term. I will add another question: The US lost many troops when Vietnam and, people still have a horrible trauma derived from things like My Lai, apart from other horrors they lived. Did US intervention made any difference in Vietnam anyway? No, because they ended up (and still are) being communist.
I wonder then, will the intervention in Syria lead to any different result from those we have seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.? I do not think so. I just wish that US civilians do not have to pay the price of their government's foreign policy decisions, because there is nothing worse than trying to trace an enemy that it is like a tree's underground roots: you never know where they can be hiding, or who can be supporting them and most importantly, how extended they are. This has made the 'War on Terror' the hardest war that United States has ever fought, because terrorism is not reduced to one or two countries, for it is an international problem and, this makes it impossible to extermine.
Actions have a reaction, this is something they must consider...because terrorism is also a self defence weapon, the deadliest of all, and I believe it can be used again if intervention in Syria is approved. attacks could happen not today, neither tomorrow or next year...but the risk is there. There is nothing more complex and powerful than human nature, and when humans are full of rancour and hate, they can do unimaginable things like what happened on September 11, 2001. The United Kingdom seems to have this very clear, I hope all other Western allies have it too because revenge is a dish that is eaten cold, and revenge for intervention in Syria could come afterwards, just for the sake of human nature and like in 2001, it will be hard or impossible to trace.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario