Action First and Questions Later: Failures in Syria

Recently, one of the investigators of the OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) team in Douma, Syria, Ian Henderson, made a statement in the UN that there was no chemical weapon attack in 2018 and that the management of the so-called watchdog organization altered the report to make it seem like the Assad regime had committed an atrocity against his own people . This means that, gee surprise, the United States airstrikes may have been conducted based on intentionally falsified, or at least untrue, evidence.

This take action first (in this case bomb first) and ask questions later mentality in the United States government is detrimental to the interests of the American people, and the careless punitive actions by the Trump administration could have provoked a war with Russia, Iran, or the Syrian government. This was considered an acceptable risk at the time without congressional authorization, despite there having been little evidence of culpability on the part of Assad.

Through the constant blame by the United States and others about the use of chemical weapons, the Assad regime has continued to deny the allegations. Although a denial from another government is far from sufficient, it should be noted that from a logical standpoint, it would not have been in Assad’s best interest to utilize such tactics because it could have meant the destruction of his power at the hands of his Western enemies. Since it is safe to assume that Assad was not suicidal, there has to be another explanation. It could be that Assad was an imprudent leader who did not calculate his actions carefully, but perhaps Western powers really were attempting to manipulate the situation to gain support for weakening Assad. In this case, there would be little that Assad could have done to escape the accusations, including ensuring the world that the chemical weapons had been removed from Syria starting in 2013. Also, the rebels and ISIS would have had much to gain from the chemical attacks had either been responsible because the West would have been looking to weaken the regime and would have taken its attention off of ISIS for a bit of time.

Whatever the motivations were on the part of the Assad regime and the United States government, Assad has thus far been successful in thwarting the American covert regime change attempt, however, Washington, D.C. continues to pressure Syria with economic sanctions. Since Assad is not permitting the utilization of the US dollar within Syria and eyes are on the economic turmoil in the country, is it only a matter of time until there is a successful invasion to force the country into compliance?

The Obama administration also practiced the actions first and questions later policy when it armed and supported (directly and indirectly) rebel groups, some of which were linked to al-Qaeda, to undermine the Assad regime. Many of the weapons supplied to the rebel groups then made their way to the Islamic State, as many of the groups were defeated or decided to join the new caliphate. Russia even went as far as to make the claim that the United States directly supported ISIS to destabilize the country. Either way, indirect material support for ISIS should be enough to question the competency and prudence of the federal government’s actions and policies.

Both Presidents Obama and Trump failed at converting Syria into an American-compliant nation, and now it looks like the United States is losing Iraq. With tensions escalating between the United States and Iran and protests against an American presence in Iraq underway, it begs the question: why do we spend all that money on regime change operations if we gain nothing from it? Even if one argues that at least ISIS was destroyed, the argument could then be focused on how the United States caused ISIS to form in the first place by taking out a strong leader in Saddam Hussein, which left a vacuum in Iraq, and then attempting to oust the Assad regime covertly, which allowed ISIS to spread into Syria. The United States government’s military adventures in the Middle East have been one failure after another, and yet our divine-inspired leaders seem to think prudence is on the side of continuing the status quo. Why not just end these pointless wars and covert operations and bring our troops home where they belong?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 29, 2020 03:38
No comments have been added yet.