Skip to main content

I was watching a news/commentary program on TV this morning while making my breakfast in the Middle East where I am on business.  I have the benefit here of watching Arab commentary as well as US commentary (I am able to stream MSNBC and CNN on my computer).
It now appears that President Obama has decided that a U.S. Strike on Syria is a real likelihood. Not all  the countries friendly to the U.S. in the Middle East are supporting that decision.

The Saudis are firmly on the side of U.S. military action in Syria. Why? Well there are a few reasons. One of those reasons is because the people in power in Syria are Alollite Muslims who relate closely to Shia Muslims. The Saudis are Sunni Muslims. All Saudis are Sunni Muslims.  So it kind of makes sense that they want whatever will harm the Shia Muslims with whom they do not agree on almost anything. Syria also supports Hezbollah and Hamas, also Shia Muslims.  Iran, also a friend to Syria, is a Shia nation. The point I am making here is that without exception the struggles in the Middle East are all related to Islam to one extent or another. Additionally Qatar, a friend of Saudi Arabia, has a great deal to gain by the overthrow of Assad and the Russian influence which restricts Qatar’s gas expansion into Europe.

Syria’s leaders have allegedly used Chemical weapons on their own people, much as Saddam Hussein did to his own people in Iraq. (With gas sold to him by the USA).  Using Chemical weapons is in violation of international treaties and laws. Consequently if Syria has used chemical weapons, there needs to be some punitive measure to ensure they do not do it again and clearly understand and appreciate the ramifications of using chemical weapons.

So I asked myself; Why would Assad use chemical weapons, knowing it would cause international intervention, when the Assad government is winning the civil war in Syria?
Is it the role of the United States of America to deliver that punitive measure?  If so; Why?
Is a military response to an international Treaty violation which resulted in the killing of 1,400 innocent women and children the right response?
Who had the most to gain from the use of Chemical weapons in Syria?
Is killing more people an appropriate response to the killing of people?

Saudi Arabia is the powerhouse in the region who possess more than enough military capability to deliver punitive action against neighboring Syria which Syria would not be able to respond to effectively.  Among the Middle East States Saudi Arabia and Syria are not friends. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has already been sending arms, food and equipment in mass quantities to the rebel forces fighting Assad. In essence the Saudis and America are ensuring the rebel forces have what they need to keep the fight going forward although many of the rebels are jihadist who basically hate America and , given the right circumstance, would turn those U.S. provided weapons against U.S. forces. It happened in Iraq and continues to happen in Afghanistan.

Of the factions fighting in Syria today, there is not one who would openly align itself with the United States if they prevail in Syria. No Islamist is going to align itself with the United States. Saudi Arabia, who does have a close relationship with the United States, also supports and equips many jihadist groups throughout the world.

Turkey is also a powerful nation militarily and could easily deliver punishment to Syria’s Assad regime for killing civilians with Chemical weapons.  The Turkish people however are foursquare against being the country who delivers the military message to Assad’s Syria. They want to cheer on America as we deliver the blows. Iraq is allowing Shia fighters to cross into Syria at will; and why not? Syria allowed over a hundred thousand Iraqi refugees to find refuge from war in Syria and Assad did all he could to house them and feed them.

We can’t allow Israel to deliver a punitive blow to Assad’s regime because that would bring Sunni and Shia, who equally hate Israel, together to wage war against Israel. (Assad would love that to happen) and America would end up defending Israel at a cost of American blood and treasure (mostly blood) which would be so great as to be unimaginable. We can’t let Israel get involved at all.

The President of the United States has indicated that he intends to deliver the punitive action to Syria which no other country will sign up for. One thousand four hundred innocent civilians were killed whose only crime was living in a city that does not support the Assad regime in the bloody civil war now raging in that country. Some say; “Whats the big deal?  One hundred thousand people have already lost their lives in the Syrian civil war. One thousand four hundred is just a drop in the killing bucket in Syria”, and that is true. Many more people have been killed by bullets and bombs in Syria than saran gas did in Syria. That point creates another dilemma for justifying a military action against Assad. We have stood by and watch Assad slaughter his people for some time now and have done little more than send a few rifles to the rebels who have done pretty despicable killing themselves. Wasn’t there a moral imperative to stop the slaughter long ago?

The existing treaties, regarding war, forbid the use of chemicals of any kind notwithstanding, one day, in an already war ravaged country, a sort of rain drifted from the sky and fell on children playing on the street, mothers standing in their kitchens making a meal, teenagers trying to get a car’s engine to run and bakers concerned with getting enough bread made for the next morning’s customers. It fell on babies in their cribs and grandparents hoping for an end to the struggle which has killed so many of their countries youth. The chemical rain fell on the makeshift schools filled with children who had nothing more on their mind than playing outside during the next recess time, not realizing that they were only minutes away from an excruciating and slow death.  That rain was in all likelihood sent by their President Bashar Al Assad. I will not try to describe the pains of their experience which took their lives, least I begin to cry at this laptop in front of me. It was horrifying and that is enough to know.

There is a sense of cowardice that pervades the people in the Middle East with the exception of those living in the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip areas of Palestine who are born fighting and struggling for their own freedom.  A feudal struggle which has only brought them pain, misery, poverty and death. Nevertheless they continue their struggle to establish self-rule as a sovereign state.
That sounds noble, but it’s not. The poor innocent civilians of Palestine who have no choice in their cowardly leaders struggle are the perennial victims of an almost hopeless vision of their hardline leaders to destroy Israel. A vision which has brought them decades of destruction, death and apartied existence while Middle East countries use them as pawns in a rhetorical war with Isreal.  It is heartbreaking to see these people, sentenced to more decades of praising those who blow themselves up in an effort to affect Israelis which then has the justification to tighten the noose on an already unhappy and depressing existence. Their struggle, however hopeless and unnecessary nevertheless expresses a courage not seen anywhere else in the Middle East. Renouncing violence as a tool to gain their statehood would bring them closer to that state of existence faster than anything else, but that will never happen.
The Palestinian leaders are heavily vested in violent struggle. They need it so they have something to blame their utter failure to lead on.

It takes courage to lead. It takes strength of character to stop trading in blood. Like the Palestinian leadership who joyfully watch the misery of their followers, so to the other leaders in the Middle East remain unwilling to lead, sacrifice and risk for a brighter and productive future in the Middle East. That reluctance to lead and risk some failure is what creates the Syria’s and the Iraq’s in the region.
America’s willingness to step in uninvited as though it were the ultimate arbitrator is what keeps the Middle East unable and unwilling to solve their own problems.

My message to President Obama and to the U.S. Congress; If you decide to go it alone and militarily punish Baser Assad for allegedly gassing his own people, I will, as an opposition voice, stand with my government, but you will be wrong in your decision to initiate war against Syria nevertheless.

Mr. President, I am asking that you sit down with Russia, enter consultations with the new Iranian leadership, talk to Iraq, Assad’s neighbor and bring the force of international condemnation and sanctions, perhaps even a type of blockade, against Syria. Or even charging Assad with Crimes against humanity at the International Court in The Hague.
If you are able to do that and Assad persist in thumbing his nose at the world while his people suffer, then increase substantially the aid the U.S. already provides to the rebels trying to over throw him, but be prepared upon their victory, to be utterly rejected by them and even threatened with war if you continue to mettle in their affairs and plans which will include the destruction of Israel as is the mantra of all Islamic states. Accepting that probable outcome must be part and parcel of your expectations.

I would hope that we learned that in Iraq and Afghanistan as well. We should know by now that in the case of the Middle East, War is not the answer, but is the choice they, in the Middle East, have made. Sometimes war is the only way to settle a dispute between enemies, but war is the very worst method of containment, settling disputes, or changing regimes.

Lastly I am the father of three veteran sons. Two of whom are combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan wars. One of my sons was critically wounded in Battle in Baqubah Iraq in 2006. Another son, my youngest, spent a total of 40 months in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thank God he was not physically injured, but being a Vietnam Veteran myself and having spent almost four years in Iraq as a civilian, I know the scars that can occur mentally are as serious as some of the physical injuries.

An expansion of a U.S. incursion into Syria will most certainly include U.S. Troops on the ground in Syria. The American people are not prepared for that Mr. President. We are war weary and we have seen the futility of U.S. involvement and investment in Middle East disputes.  Please consider carefully your decision to engage U.S. Military might into the Syria Civil War.

I fear the outcome you hope for, Mr. President,  has never really been any of the realistic probabilities and the U.S. will have a third failed war which also will have costs us everything and taught us nothing.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  There are some interesting points and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jim P, DeadHead, Sandino

    some are good, but I can't help but stumble over the claim that the people of the middle east are filled with cowardice.

    There is a sense of cowardice that pervades the people in the Middle East with the exception of those living in the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza Strip areas of Palestine who are born fighting and struggling for their own freedom.  A feudal struggle which has only brought them pain, misery, poverty and death. Nevertheless they continue their struggle to establish self-rule as a sovereign state.
    It sounds fairly, ummm... well the nice way would be to say "broad-brush approach" and a less kind way would be to say "racist."

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say in that paragraph (or the one which follows), but I'm hoping what I'm reading is not quite what you meant.

    "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

    by YucatanMan on Sat Sep 07, 2013 at 01:34:31 AM PDT

    •  What I meant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino

      Thanks for the comment and giving me the chance to clarify. I think you misread my intent. I have lived and worked in the Middle East for over 11 years in several countries. A common thread in the Middle East which is propagandized in their media every day is that "none of this is our fault". The poverty in the Middle East, is not the fault of any Middle Eastern Government.  The Wars that are waged on a regular basis there are not of their doing. The civil, social, religious restrictions are not them. They are just following God dictates.   The governments of the Middle East including the one I am sitting in right now do not respect human rights, civil rights , or religious freedom.
      I am not referring to the average person on the street in the Middle East, but the governments who rule over them. My many years here have allowed me to foster many, many friendships and though I am not Muslim many have accepted me and welcomed me into their homes. Your suggestion of Racism is very offensive to me but I can understand how you may have come to that conclusion.
      I do not wish to see any of these people hurt, but their own governments put them in harms ways for reasons not compatible with the need to survive, or defend themselves. Although they are very religious here, in the Middle East, for the ruling class,  Power is the real God.

  •  Interesting and thoughtful perspective. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Sandino

    I believe your thoughts carry even more weight since you and your children have given so much in service to this country.  Thank you.

    You might be interested in this interview from yesterday's Democracy Now titled: Syrian's Debate:  Will U.S. Attack Help the Opposition's Struggle Against Assad

    The interview provides a great deal of insight from the perspective of individuals involved in the Syrian opposition.  What was most fascinating to me was the position of Rim Turkmani, from an opposition group based in London called Building the Syrian State Current.  She said:

    However, I think this is a historic opportunity in front of President Obama and the U.S. to demonstrate its political and diplomatic power. We all know that the U.S. is strong militarily. You know, you can measure that physically. But nobody can measure the political and diplomatic power and the force for peace, except in such times, in the times of international crisis. And if the U.S. resort to military power to end this, then that means basically that they failed politically. I would like President Obama to live up to the speech he delivered in Cairo shortly after he won, you know, his first elections, when he promised new relations with the Arab world and the Muslim world. And I would like to see, you know, such new relations, but I don’t see them coming through bombs. I want them to come through peace and diplomacy.
    Her characterization of American military intervention as evidence of failure not might and supremacy was a welcome and surprising perspective.  The interview also includes an individual who is calling for US military intervention.  
  •  You're wrong about Saudi Arabia. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, FG

    Yes, the Saudis dislike the Shias and work to advance Sunni interests, more specifically the very conservative Salafi form of Sunni Islam.

    But the notion that Saudi Arabia has an independent capacity for aggressive military action against Syria is simply false. This demonstrates the common misconception that orders of battle and lists of equipment bear the faintest resemblance to actual military power.

    Yes, the Saudi military looks formidable on paper, equipped as it is with cutting-edge U.S. and British built warplanes and modern U.S. built tanks. But its combat power is not remotely commensurate with its paper strength. It has no tradition of success. It lacks remotely realistic training. It has traditionally been a haven for inept Saudi princes. During the first Gulf War, the U.S. command was instructed to make the Saudi military look good, to burnish its reputation. There is a recording, well known within the U.S. military, of an exasperated U.S. air intercept controller trying to coach an inept Saudi fighter pilot onto an intercept with a 'sitting duck' Iraqi aircraft. It's reportedly painful to listen to.

    Syria by contrast doesn't look good on paper, with little in the way of cutting-edge hardware, and a consistent record of defeat at the hands of Israel. But the Syrian military (as vile and murderous as they are) at least knows how to fight. In 1973 they suffered severe losses to the Israelis, but fought ferociously in the process. They have been involved in combat in Lebanon, with Israel, or against their own people for much of the last 40 years.

    I think any actual combat between the Saudis and Syrians would greatly surprise you. Shiny hardware does not influence combat outcome as much as you might think. Experience and training matter a lot more. The Saudis have basically no combat experience. The Syrians have a lot.

    •  Your point about the Syrians is well taken. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sandino, Ralphdog

      Combat experience counts for a lot. The Vietnamese beat us with literally no airpower whatsoever and their weapons were not a s modern as ours. We rained hell down upon them and the estimates are that we killed over 3 million Vietnamese. They nevertheless beat us.
      I am a Vietnam vet and I am the first to say they beat us fair and square.
      I have participated in the training of the Saudis. To your point they are well trained, but have no combat experience.

  •  Am sharing with friends and family (0+ / 0-)

    who have recently had their non-military boots on the ground in or near Syria.  I appreciate this conversation starter, thank you VERY much.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site