We argued against the US cruise missile strike on Syria already, so now here's the rejoinder. Knowing that Obama is an avid follower of Al Bawaba, we thought we'd (playing devil's advocate) back him up!
Well, we can’t say the iron isn’t scorching. Should Obama go ahead and strike, here’s why it might not be such a warped or at least misguided scheme after all. Those in support say that this intervention is hardly guns blazing nor to serve as a deal breaker or game-changer. It may have no bearing on a longer drawn out affair that is Lebanon Civil War 2 or Iraq 3 but cruise missiles served up by a superpower nonetheless should not be taken lightly.
Hitting the Syrian dictator where it hurts has been the option settled on by the US who intend to signal their punitive measure for alleged use of chemical armoury that crossed America's blood red line.
With Obama faltering from his path of active attack, it seems he will wait on his Syrian strike on securing Congress’ approval. Despite US Defence Secretary announcing last week that the US was “ready to go” on a strike, no decision on the US’ involvement will be made until September 9, when Congress returns from its summer break.
Obama could serve his goals of a contained intervention with limited strikes on a handful of military targets, probably by means of cruise missiles that involve no risk to U.S. personnel.
The goal would be to impose a cost on Assad that outweighs whatever he thinks he gained by gassing hundreds of people near Damascus last week, as he is accused of doing. In launching a limited attack, Obama could hope to deter Assad from using his chemical arsenal again. Let’s not forget this is not the first time Assad and his tyrannical cohort have been accused of wielding chemical agents against the Syrian population - the poor besieged UN chemical weapons team were in Damascus to investigate three separate allegations of the Syrian regime utilising chemicals in battle.
In a region where every leader has something to say, it would do Obama good to demonstrate to the rest of the world, to Iran and other rogue states like North Korea and to vehemently anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah, that he means what he says when it comes to red lines in the Middle East. Anyone hoping for more or a swift US-generated conclusoin to the conflict will likely be disappointed.
While Obama is prevaricating, delayed by public opinion and the involvement of Congress, there is expiry date on his intervention. The longer it takes for Obama to act, the more prepared Assad becomes.
Obama, the time is now. Check out Al Bawaba’s top reasons why you should strike Syria as soon as possible.