Ayoon Wa Azan (A limited strike is not enough)

We are supposed to wait for another week before the United States carries out a military strike against the Syrian regime, which would be “limited in duration and scope,” as U.S. President Barack Obama put it. The U.S. Congress is in recess, and is supposed to reconvene on September 9. I read that the approval and the strike will follow Congress’s return, and it seems that Obama does not fear meeting the same fate as the British Prime Minister David Cameron, who lost the vote in the House of Commons, which rejected any British participation in a military strike against Syria. The U.S. administration has been in contact with members of Congress almost every day, and I do not rule out for the strike to be brought forward with the administration claiming it had obtained a majority in favor through its bilateral contacts with Congressmen and Congresswomen. It is not impossible for Congress to oppose the strike, but for reasons that I believe are the opposite of the reasons that Britain had voted against it. To be sure, Congress has a majority that supports Israel after the Israel lobby bought it and hijacked the foreign policy of the world’s only remaining superpower. The objection of the U.S. representatives opposing Obama is thus not over the strike, but over its limited scope. U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham hinted that they might vote against the strike, which McCain said would be ‘cosmetic’ and therefore insufficient. McCain and Graham are hawks that have supported every war against Arabs and Muslims. Last month, they went to Egypt and returned only to spread cheap lies about the interim administration. I propose that the Arab League issue a recommendation to all Arab countries to ban these two enemies from entering any Arab country, as they are working toward new American imperialism and serve the interests of Israel alone against every Arab interest. I admit to the reader that as I write these words, and pause between one view and another, I write in anger and sadness. I do not want to say anything I might regret, or that might reflect weakness. Nevertheless, I raise my hands in surrender. Indeed, the situation is such that the Syrian regime is killing its people with every weapon available. And while there is an honest patriotic opposition, there is also a terrorist opposition whose allegiance is to al-Qaeda, and which happens to be the best argument for the regime to stay in power. The regime will not fall with an American strike or strikes. Personally, I categorically oppose a U.S. strike, because the United States is not the world’s policeman, and has no right whatsoever to impose itself upon Syria, Egypt, or any other Arab country. Furthermore, the proposed strike is limited in scope, and will not change anything on the ground as Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal otherwise wants. President Obama justified the coming strike by saying that the use of chemical weapons was “an assault on human dignity” and “a serious danger to our national security.” It is indeed an assault on human dignity, and I have called for the crucifixion of the perpetrators at the gates of Damascus. However, the part about threatening U.S. national security is not true, especially as the U.S. president said that the chemical weapons endanger “our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq.” I hope that the reader will notice that Obama started with Israel. If the Americans fear for anyone, that would be Israel. But the regime will most certainly not use chemical weapons against Israel, because the latter possesses a nuclear arsenal. Furthermore, modern history, which we have witnessed, tells us that the Syrian regime has not fired a single bullet against Israel in 40 years, which would otherwise justify the fears of the U.S. president that the regime might fire a rocket with a chemical warhead against Israel (Personally, I fear that a ‘limited strike’ might embolden the regime). I have a more logical reason for the coming strike, which is that Barack Obama is at the receiving end of a broad and sustained campaign by the American Right, including the Republican Party, the Israel lobby, and the neocons, accusing him of squandering American leadership in the world and America’s reputation with his dithering and cowardice. The strike will therefore be his riposte to his opponents, and Obama will claim that it proves his readiness to take military action when justified. He is not talking about reactions, however, and here, I do not want more than for Hezbollah to step away from the Syrian tragedy to remain strong against Israel. The real situation is as follows: the regime in Syria is killing its citizens, and there have been more than 100,000 casualties in 30 months. The United States wants to break the back of the Syrian armed forces by destroying its bases and military airports, and perhaps even its planes and tanks, rendering Syria a country whose people can be violated without any protection. I have no words to describe what I feel in my heart, so I shall remain silent. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent or reflect the editorial policy of Arab Today.