By Sebastian Sârbu.
Bashar Al-Assad is one of those inflatable dictators, ,,pumped up” by Moscow, Phenian and Tehran orbiting along the famous infamous axis of the Evil, so defined by the USA, as far back as the times of Ronald Reagan Administration.
The Soviet Union’s ambition was to create a new power centre, actually for polarizing the Asiatic and Arabic worlds, so that by creation of the ,,Asiatic – Arabic Corridor” to build and emergent alliance of anti-occident type (USSR-India-Pakistan-North Korea -Iran-Afghanistan).
The basic is that Assad enjoys a rather counterfeited reputation and that he lost any credibility for the civilized world. The human rights culture and the higher standards of the western democracy call for an intervention.
The political solution turned up as non viable anymore from the moment we acknowledge the failure of the UNO reunions focused on finding a way out from the Syrian conflict and also on the failure of the Peace Conference in Geneva, against the dynamical backdrop scoring about 200,000 casualties toll, civilians mostly, since 2011 until today.
Lots have been said about the intensively invoked western military intervention chaperoned by the USA in Syria. Despite of those statements, naively decrypted, claiming that this military operation was not meant to remove Assad from power, this intervention could be even larger, and way more complex than a limited ,,Desert Fox” operation type, or a lightning warfare strike specific to the Israeli defense.
Sending in the air raids in April 1999 in Yugoslavia is just a coincidence which stirred confusion among the analysts of this phenomenon, since by this example no one wished to highlight a so-called limited intervention, with identical character, but rather the fact that the United States could move unilaterally, without a mandate from the UN.
A 2 to 3 military op in Syria, as vented by some news agencies would be deemed as a military expedition, that is a free-wheel single-sided foray of the US, possibly with a minimal support from France and the Great Britain. The postponement of the military intervention in Syria, far from playing on purpose to disappoint, provides the military action against the Assad regime with consistency and effectiveness and does not exceeds the Pentagon’s planning agenda which also are in the course of consulting with the Allies.
Firstly the necessary relenting of the military intervention development, actually provides the NATO member states, in fact to the USA’s traditional allies the opportunity to endorse the legitimacy of such an action, in agreement with the applicable norms in the international rights.
Not at last however, taking into consideration the Russia’s bellicose opposition which deployed a cruiser and an anti-submarine warships in the Mediterranean Sea, the USA wish an aggregation of a large coalitions of states.
The President Obama’s statement, declaring that no one wishes a new Iraq-like situation to happen, is indicative for the fact that the military intervention in Syria shall rather be one portent and complex and not just a military adventure empty of a legitimate justification and support of the international community on a largest scale possible. Also, this new type approach, is taking into account the risks and costs of an intervention, but also the practical modus operandi, by a ground-based action or of surgical type, aerial strategic a.s.o. In no way this statement should not be perceived with scepticism, as a pulling off from engagement which would favour a unilateral intervention, of lightning strike type, especially due to the fresh complications looming ahead related to the dangerous regional interests and powers such as Iran acting as a regional leader, putting up nuclear infatuation, promoter of some sort of political fundamentalism.
One portion of the international civil society uttered the opinion that the sheer lack of international community-backed action, indirectly legitimate the criminal acts of the Assad regime. In fact, an essential role was played by the instrumentation of the psychological mechanism and the public communications exercising meant to prepare the public opinion, which manifested the recrudescence in the indictment of the Assad regime and mostly of its last period.
Also this military intervention was approached from an economic angle, in the sense that the world economy would be hampered by this regional warfare.
Beyond the war philosophy, which in some cultural systems was regarded like having a civilisation bringer or creator role, we cannot however pretend not to see the modern studies and statistic indicative that the USA were always on the winning side from the economic-financial angle from any war waged elsewhere anywhere in the world. Beside this aspect there is also a quite intellectually and politically notorious fact the existence of the military industrial aggregated complex (the military capitalism), put together by way of the marriage of the three powers: economic, military, political, and the direct outcome of interest for our case study is the fact that the Pentagon takes no political-military decision on warfare businesses, without taking in account by actual computing its economic and strategic advantages. In the same context was circulated in the press the news release according to which the stock exchange shares of the weapons manufacturing industrial corporations skyrocketed by 20%, let alone the fact that the entire defense and security industry is in full swing and booming so to speak.
One should mention that the Bush doctrine of ,,the collective internationalism”, as it was recorded in the military and geopolitical studies, confirms that the USA may intervene not just off only preconceived reasons based on economically dominant pole position, or else out of a purely geostrategic far-fetching scheme but also from reasons concerning its own independence, save-guarding democracy, human rights and the fundamental liberties. This fact falls along the same strategic line under the Obama Administrations also.
The USA are a standalone power which, according to its defense doctrine, may intervene anywhere are threatened the democratic values, the order of the right and the human fundamental rights. Again, we emphasize, only a country with solid power structures may afford an intervention of any nature whatever on the international scene to knightly champion in the service of an ,,catholic ideal”. That is why those who are complaining the costs of a military intervention do not comprehend the intricate workings of a power’s mechanism, neither its values nor its principles.
Let’s not forget that the written records of the mankind history assert that the weapon was the first and the tool was next, yet the modern mankind sacredly pledged and acknowledged in the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the immutable principle of the force of the Right taking precedence over the right to the Force. So this moral and legal elementary school textbook of the modern man is the legitimate instrument of the Occident by which the Western values of an universal type are opposed to the Machiavellism of some obsolete political forces, acting in spaces where ideology is fed like opium to a pauper and feudalized population.
In conclusion, irrespective of the angle we may chose to watch on the Syrian Crisis, it calls for an answer, and this one should be synergic and strong bolstered with the moral worth of Justice in the civilized world at the level of the XXIst century.
