Unpopular among Americans
THE JORDAN TIMES
by George S. Hishmeh | Aug 29, 2013 | 23:06
A rare coincidence occurred last Tuesday at the White House and the State Department, which underlines the critical view emerging once again in the United States over its military interventions abroad that, in recent decades, took the lives of some 8,000 American soldiers.
A national television broadcast showed President Barack Obama at the White House last Monday awarding the Medal of Honour to an American staff sergeant for heroism during a 2009 battle in Afghanistan that cost the lives of eight fellow soldiers.
Staff Sgt. Ty M. Carter is now the fifth living recipient of the nation’s highest military honour for heroic actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. Hardly a day passes by without the American media publishing accounts of casualties in Iraq, a testament to the failure of the American intervention launched by president George W. Bush.
Just as Obama ended the ceremony, Secretary of State John F. Kerry appeared on national television from the nearby State Department to declare, surprisingly, that the alleged use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Damascus last week was “undeniable”.
The Obama administration, he continued, would hold the Syrian government accountable for a “moral obscenity” that has shocked the world’s conscience. In other words, the drums of war began sounding loud and clear.
The Obama administration appeared, though hesitant, to the satisfaction of many in the US, on the verge of launching a limited military strike against Syria, denying its intention was a change of regime in this key Arab state that borders Lebanon, Israel, the Palestinian territories, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey.
A recent opinion poll revealed that a majority of Americans, over 60 per cent, are against any military intervention. Obama himself indicated at the start of his presidency that his mission would be to curtail foreign interventions.
Regrettable, however, about the US position in this respect was Obama administration’s unwillingness to await a verdict from the UN inspectors in Syria who are examining the site of the chemical attack in a suburb of the Syrian capital, Damascus, where several hundred people were killed.
More importantly, the Obama administration and its two prominent European allies, France and Britain, have not managed to win support for their “rush to war” approach from the 22-member League of Arab States, which underlines the critical views among Arab peoples.
A widespread feeling in the region and elsewhere is that it is unlikely that the regime of President Bashar Assad would undertake such an action when a team of UN experts was already present in Syria, looking into an earlier incident of chemical attack.
Added to the misgivings of many in the Arab world have been published reports that “Israeli intelligence information is widely believed to have played a central role in enabling the US’ adamant conviction that Assad’s regime fired chemical weapons at civilians outside Damascus [last week]”.
A large delegation of senior Israeli security officials is currently in Washington, reported an Israeli daily, holding talks with top administration officials led by US National Security adviser Susan Rice. An Israeli TV report also claimed that the chemical weapons were fired by a Syrian army division under the command of the Syrian president’s brother, Maher Assad.
The American public concern was voiced in an editorial in The New York Times last Tuesday, which stressed that “a political agreement is still the best solution to this conflict [in Syria] and every effort must be made to find one”.
The paper underlined the fact that Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons “surely requires a response of some kind”, but failed to offer any ideas.
There is no doubt that an American intervention would unnecessarily inflame the region. Hence, the United Nations remains the best forum where all the first steps can be taken to defuse tension.
The writer is a Washington-based columnist.