Posted by Dr. Gopal Unnikrishna Kurup
Russia on Tuesday announced that its early warning system had detected the launch of two ballistic missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline. According to the Russian media the missiles detected have fallen into Mediterranean sea. That was the only cue needed for the Indian nervous stock market to react depressingly.The Sensex slumped 700 points, Nifty fell over 200 points and the BSE banking index fell up to 5.3%, - all after the Russian defense ministry's announcement.
While world leaders grapple with what to do about Syria, the reports of carnage on the ground keep rising. At least 118 people were killed across Syria on Sunday, including 13 children, the opposition group Local Coordination Committees of Syria said. And 63 people were killed across the country on Monday, including eight children, according to the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria. State-run news agency SANA said the army killed "scores of terrorists" Monday and destroyed their hideouts.The United Nations has said more than 100,000 people - including many civilians - have been killed since a popular uprising spiraled into a civil war two years ago.
Public opinion may be a poor guide to the low-down of state policy. But that opinion carries the burden of two long wars, both failures. As a result, leaders have been sufficiently cautious to pass decision to their national assemblies. In British the result was a rebuff. In Washington, President Obama has decided to refer Syria to Congress and France's president, François Hollande, may do likewise.
Obama said Saturday, "We are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act. But the administration will have to overcome "a lot of distrust among the American people" as well as of the world about the intelligence that accusing Syria's government of a poison gas attack outside Damascus in late August.
Russia rejects Kerry's claim that the United States has all the evidence it needs. China weighed in Monday as well. The United Nations, meanwhile, said evidence that could show whether chemical weapons were used in Syria was being delivered to a lab on Monday. But a U.N. spokesman would not estimate how long it may take to get results. Even when results are released, they won't show who was responsible
Britain, which was just as forceful a voice for military action as the United States, also won't take part after the House of Commons rejected a resolution that would have opened the door for British attacks against Syria. In Yemen, meanwhile, that country's parliament on Monday announced its opposition to any outside intervention in Syria. France, although a supporter, has said it won't act without the United States as a partner. And NATO itself won't take military action against Syria. So the world is looking at the United States, as to what it will do.
It is this stiff disapproval within and out that made President Obama decide to seek Congressional support. The Administration is trying hard to garner support for their “limited action”. Obviously, the main reason is that the they want to signal increased support for Syria's opposition in a bid to shift the balance of power in Syria's two and a half year-old civil war. Administration officials will be conducting classified briefings on Syria for Congress nearly every day this week. Obama will meet with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, congressional aides said, and he'd already planned talks with the leaders of the key national security committees in the House and Senate.
Republicans hold the House, 233-200, with two vacancies. Obama's gamble to seek congressional backing carries many risks, chief among them is that Congress might thwart him and make him look weak around the world. Lawmakers are split, worried about whether military strikes could worsen the situation - partly because the opposition in Syria includes al Qaeda-linked extremists such as the al-Nusra Front. As a respite, following Obama's last-minute decision to hold off until Congress weighs in, no such action is expected until after lawmakers reconvene from recess on September 9
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates have offered the United States use of their military assets for action against Syria. However, two senior Arab diplomats said talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE are preliminary, and no details have been discussed. Administration also lets it out that Blood and hair samples obtained from first responders through an "appropriate chain of custody" have "tested positive for signatures of sarin" gas. It's unclear exactly how the United States obtained the material independently of the United Nations.
The United Nations charter generally doesn't allow countries to attack other nations unless in self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. But United States, Britain, and France couldn't get support from the United Nations for a strike on Syria, because Syria's allies in the U.N. Security Council - Russia and China - are sure to block any U.N. effort. Russia, which has major trade deals with Syria, is sending a delegation to Washington for "dialogue" with members of Congress.
Under U.S. law, Obama doesn't have to get Congress' approval to launch military action. The 1973 War Powers Resolution authorizes a president to initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. But internationally, a U.S. strike against Syria could be deemed illegal.
The reason why a missile attack on Syria is proving so unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic has nothing to do with imperialist aversion. The reason is that it is a bad idea. "Punishing" a dictator for killing his own people by simply killing more of his own people seems beyond cruel. It seems stupid. It leads nowhere.
Syria has repeatedly denied being behind an August 21 chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people. Al-Assad's regime Monday asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "to shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, meanwhile, warned that a regional war could break out if Syria is attacked."The Middle East is a powder keg, and the fire is approaching today”
In Syria, an attack would be in retaliation for a suspected breach of international law on chemical weapons. Action is described as merely punitive and a "deterrent", directed purely at a past incident of a deemed chemical massacre. A gesture war like this will not punish the guilty, who should be arraigned before a war crimes court. ‘Limited action’ will merely destroy buildings and kill people. It seems peculiarly pointless
In the attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the goal of western intervention was at least clear. It was to topple a regime. Since the UN forbids such overt aggression against member states, action must be dressed up as humanitarian or to enforce UN resolutions. But everyone knows what is the intended outcome.In Syria's civil war, there is no moral high ground. There is only the quicksand of a wider Middle East conflict that the U.S. must carefully navigate.
Some of the strongest factions aligned against Assad's regime have links to al-Qaeda, which is waging a worldwide terrorist campaign against U.S. If the forces trying to topple Assad prevail, Syria could become the world's first al-Qaeda-led nation -- an outcome would almost certainly draw large numbers of U.S. ground forces back onto a Middle East.
An American military attack against Assad will strengthen the hand of those who want to turn Syria into an Islamic state. And if that happens, neighboring Jordan will almost certainly fall to a jihadist movement. The tumbling of those dominion due to an ill-conceived U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war might also bring down Iraq's government which is wedged between Iran, Syria and Jordan. That fledgling government might not survive if it is surrounded by militant Islamic states
That is why the world is skeptical. It is not the west's "might is right empire" that should be in retreat. If it is the brazen deployment of aerial bombardment as a cure-all for the world's ills also, then some good would have been done.
U.S.A.'s Threat of Missile Attack on Syria
Russia on Tuesday announced that its early warning system had detected the launch of two ballistic missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline. According to the Russian media the missiles detected have fallen into Mediterranean sea. That was the only cue needed for the Indian nervous stock market to react depressingly.The Sensex slumped 700 points, Nifty fell over 200 points and the BSE banking index fell up to 5.3%, - all after the Russian defense ministry's announcement. While world leaders grapple with what to do about Syria, the reports of carnage on the ground keep rising. At least 118 people were killed across Syria on Sunday, including 13 children, the opposition group Local Coordination Committees of Syria said. And 63 people were killed across the country on Monday, including eight children, according to the opposition Local Coordination Committees of Syria. State-run news agency SANA said the army killed "scores of terrorists" Monday and destroyed their hideouts.The United Nations has said more than 100,000 people - including many civilians - have been killed since a popular uprising spiraled into a civil war two years ago.
Public opinion may be a poor guide to the low-down of state policy. But that opinion carries the burden of two long wars, both failures. As a result, leaders have been sufficiently cautious to pass decision to their national assemblies. In British the result was a rebuff. In Washington, President Obama has decided to refer Syria to Congress and France's president, François Hollande, may do likewise.
Obama said Saturday, "We are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act. But the administration will have to overcome "a lot of distrust among the American people" as well as of the world about the intelligence that accusing Syria's government of a poison gas attack outside Damascus in late August.
Russia rejects Kerry's claim that the United States has all the evidence it needs. China weighed in Monday as well. The United Nations, meanwhile, said evidence that could show whether chemical weapons were used in Syria was being delivered to a lab on Monday. But a U.N. spokesman would not estimate how long it may take to get results. Even when results are released, they won't show who was responsible
Britain, which was just as forceful a voice for military action as the United States, also won't take part after the House of Commons rejected a resolution that would have opened the door for British attacks against Syria. In Yemen, meanwhile, that country's parliament on Monday announced its opposition to any outside intervention in Syria. France, although a supporter, has said it won't act without the United States as a partner. And NATO itself won't take military action against Syria. So the world is looking at the United States, as to what it will do.
It is this stiff disapproval within and out that made President Obama decide to seek Congressional support. The Administration is trying hard to garner support for their “limited action”. Obviously, the main reason is that the they want to signal increased support for Syria's opposition in a bid to shift the balance of power in Syria's two and a half year-old civil war. Administration officials will be conducting classified briefings on Syria for Congress nearly every day this week. Obama will meet with House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, congressional aides said, and he'd already planned talks with the leaders of the key national security committees in the House and Senate.
Republicans hold the House, 233-200, with two vacancies. Obama's gamble to seek congressional backing carries many risks, chief among them is that Congress might thwart him and make him look weak around the world. Lawmakers are split, worried about whether military strikes could worsen the situation - partly because the opposition in Syria includes al Qaeda-linked extremists such as the al-Nusra Front. As a respite, following Obama's last-minute decision to hold off until Congress weighs in, no such action is expected until after lawmakers reconvene from recess on September 9
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates have offered the United States use of their military assets for action against Syria. However, two senior Arab diplomats said talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE are preliminary, and no details have been discussed. Administration also lets it out that Blood and hair samples obtained from first responders through an "appropriate chain of custody" have "tested positive for signatures of sarin" gas. It's unclear exactly how the United States obtained the material independently of the United Nations.
The United Nations charter generally doesn't allow countries to attack other nations unless in self-defense or with approval from the U.N. Security Council. But United States, Britain, and France couldn't get support from the United Nations for a strike on Syria, because Syria's allies in the U.N. Security Council - Russia and China - are sure to block any U.N. effort. Russia, which has major trade deals with Syria, is sending a delegation to Washington for "dialogue" with members of Congress.
Under U.S. law, Obama doesn't have to get Congress' approval to launch military action. The 1973 War Powers Resolution authorizes a president to initiate an attack as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours. But internationally, a U.S. strike against Syria could be deemed illegal.
The reason why a missile attack on Syria is proving so unpopular on both sides of the Atlantic has nothing to do with imperialist aversion. The reason is that it is a bad idea. "Punishing" a dictator for killing his own people by simply killing more of his own people seems beyond cruel. It seems stupid. It leads nowhere.
Syria has repeatedly denied being behind an August 21 chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people. Al-Assad's regime Monday asked U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "to shoulder his responsibilities for preventing any aggression on Syria, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, meanwhile, warned that a regional war could break out if Syria is attacked."The Middle East is a powder keg, and the fire is approaching today”
In Syria, an attack would be in retaliation for a suspected breach of international law on chemical weapons. Action is described as merely punitive and a "deterrent", directed purely at a past incident of a deemed chemical massacre. A gesture war like this will not punish the guilty, who should be arraigned before a war crimes court. ‘Limited action’ will merely destroy buildings and kill people. It seems peculiarly pointless
In the attacks on Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the goal of western intervention was at least clear. It was to topple a regime. Since the UN forbids such overt aggression against member states, action must be dressed up as humanitarian or to enforce UN resolutions. But everyone knows what is the intended outcome.In Syria's civil war, there is no moral high ground. There is only the quicksand of a wider Middle East conflict that the U.S. must carefully navigate.
Some of the strongest factions aligned against Assad's regime have links to al-Qaeda, which is waging a worldwide terrorist campaign against U.S. If the forces trying to topple Assad prevail, Syria could become the world's first al-Qaeda-led nation -- an outcome would almost certainly draw large numbers of U.S. ground forces back onto a Middle East.
An American military attack against Assad will strengthen the hand of those who want to turn Syria into an Islamic state. And if that happens, neighboring Jordan will almost certainly fall to a jihadist movement. The tumbling of those dominion due to an ill-conceived U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war might also bring down Iraq's government which is wedged between Iran, Syria and Jordan. That fledgling government might not survive if it is surrounded by militant Islamic states
That is why the world is skeptical. It is not the west's "might is right empire" that should be in retreat. If it is the brazen deployment of aerial bombardment as a cure-all for the world's ills also, then some good would have been done.
No comments:
Post a Comment