08.09.2013 The intractable case of Syria
The US-led invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a military misadventure due to exorbitant human and material loss. The same is likely to happen again
By Tahir Kamran
The Syrian crisis has taken an ominous turn. The civil war, which started in the wake of Arab Spring in March 2011, is killing 5,000 people every month and has created 1.8 million refugees. The recent incident which has alerted the Western powers, including America, happened in Eastern Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, which was allegedly shelled by Syrian armed forces around 2am on August 21 using sarin gas, resulting in the deaths of more than 1400 people. A definitive outcome of any investigation as to who, in fact, is the culprit is yet to come, but some people of considerable influence are squarely blaming the Bashar al-Assad government for the atrocity.
Immediately after the incident got the media spotlight, yet another strike by the ‘Global Cop’ (read America) seemed imminent in close collaboration with its coalition partners — Great Britain being the foremost among them, followed by France. It was not, however, a smooth sailing as some, including Barack Obama and John Kerry, thought it might be.
The House of Commons in Great Britain has voted against the ninth western intervention in Arab or Muslim countries in 15 years, putting the American president in an awkward position. The backbench revolt among the Tory camp with 30 MPs joining the opposition to vote against launching any military offensive on Syria seems quite heartening. Cognizant of the sustained opposition within UK and within the military establishment too, members of parliament went on to represent the will of the people.
The anti-war component among British parliamentarians carried the day with apparently a slim margin of 13, it nevertheless had a lasting impact. Professor Philip Cowley of Nottingham University told the BBC that, “No government has lost a vote over matters of defence or military involvement since at least the mid-19th century.” That is exactly what makes it into a historic event. One hopes that people of considerable influence like Boris Johnson, London Mayor, Lord Howard, a former conservative leader and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former foreign secretary, who are putting pressure on David Cameron to return to parliament for another vote, don’t succeed in their bidding.
Britain, by voting against the (imperial) war, has not only set at rest the widely held perception of the country being Washington’s bloody adjutant, but it has also caused commotion and disquiet in America. One more important upshot of that historic event has been Obama’s climb down: the “beginning of the historic American retreat”.
The American wobble caused by the House of Commons definitive stance on the Syrian crisis has reverberated significantly in other countries of Europe too, particularly France is a case in point. Francois Hollande is coming under increasing internal pressure to hold a debate on the issue of Syria in parliament as opinion polls show 64 per cent of the French populace disapproves of intervention in Syria. Francois Fillon, former prime minister and the main opposition leader, referred to Syria as part of a region which is a ‘powder-keg’ and argued that France should act “responsibly” and not follow anyone into an attack, even America.
People at large, particularly in Europe, are surely entitled to ask for clarity from their political leadership, not least because the consequences, unintended or otherwise, of many of the previous eight interventions in Muslim countries by the Western powers hardly show any sign of abating. The invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan have proved to be a military misadventure for Nato-led forces. The human and material costs incurred in these invasions have been exorbitant vis a vis the anticipated outcome. The same is likely to happen if history is allowed to repeat itself.
The most toxic and enduring element of the civil war in Syria is its significant sectarian dimension, which one must not lose sight of. Although the Shia-Sunni sectarian divide has historical roots, the way American forces used Shia militia against Sunni insurgents during its military engagement in Iraq exacerbated the sectarian malaise in the region. Besides Syria, it will have destabilising impact on Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon and it may turn out to be extremely perilous for Israel too. It is probable that the Western powers are not alive to the grave threat that this proposed military action will widen the gulf between Muslim world and the American-led West beyond measure.
The Arab League’s role in this crisis is absolutely lamentable. Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular appear to be all the more anxious to see the back of Bashar al-Assad. Their prime concern is to stall Iranian influence in Syria. Resolution passed by the Arab League espousing the military attack on Syria is highly regrettable to say the least.