U.S. President Barack Obama yesterday warned the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that the United States would intervene militarily if it employed its stockpile of unconventional weapons (NYT) in its eighteen-month battle with opposition forces. Syria is suspected of maintaining chemical weapons, but it is unclear whether the regime has biological weapons in its arsenal. While Obama has shied away from calls by some at home and abroad to implement a no-fly zone over Syria or arm the opposition, he said the circulation or use of unconventional weapons "would change my calculus."
Analysis
"While so far the United States and Europe have decided that the conflict is too complicated to resolve with a Libya-like mission, most countries in the region are taking sides. The Shiite-led states support the government. On the other side, Sunni states back the rebels. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided weapons and cash. The Turkish Prime Minister discreetly established a border base camp for regime officers defecting to the F.S.A. Away from the Muslim world, the conflict has been no less divisive," writes the New Yorker's Jon Lee Anderson.
"Those arguing for military intervention say the longer the United States holds back, the less influence Washington will have with the rebels. But even if American troops could safely land a whole new president and parliament in Damascus, that's no guarantee the replacement regime will be grateful. Debts of thanks are almost never bankable and often make for resentments," writes Newsweek's Christopher Dickey.
"The reality is that Syria is in the middle of a complex internal struggle with a divided opposition, regional players with diverse agendas, and competing great powers. There's no single force on the ground--or constellation of outside powers--that can impose order. For the United States to enter the fray as a quasi-combatant would make matters more complicated, not less," writes Aaron David Miller for ForeignPolicy.com.
Analysis
"While so far the United States and Europe have decided that the conflict is too complicated to resolve with a Libya-like mission, most countries in the region are taking sides. The Shiite-led states support the government. On the other side, Sunni states back the rebels. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have provided weapons and cash. The Turkish Prime Minister discreetly established a border base camp for regime officers defecting to the F.S.A. Away from the Muslim world, the conflict has been no less divisive," writes the New Yorker's Jon Lee Anderson.
"Those arguing for military intervention say the longer the United States holds back, the less influence Washington will have with the rebels. But even if American troops could safely land a whole new president and parliament in Damascus, that's no guarantee the replacement regime will be grateful. Debts of thanks are almost never bankable and often make for resentments," writes Newsweek's Christopher Dickey.
"The reality is that Syria is in the middle of a complex internal struggle with a divided opposition, regional players with diverse agendas, and competing great powers. There's no single force on the ground--or constellation of outside powers--that can impose order. For the United States to enter the fray as a quasi-combatant would make matters more complicated, not less," writes Aaron David Miller for ForeignPolicy.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment