Syria and Iraq

The past week has seen significant discussion over the likelihood of an US strike on Syria with numerous commentators comparing the impending strike to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should be made clear that no decision has been made or announced publicly on whether to intervene or not (Obama interviewed on PBS on 28 August stated that he had options but had not made a decision). The misunderstanding over the US and Middle East is understandable. In an attempt to inform the discussion, please find below a brief comparison of Syria and other countries where the US has recently intervened.

Bush
The Bush administration was hawkish, undermined by corruption and dual interests and committed to respond to 9/11. Afghanistan was viewed as an easy target and the regime of the time did not consider historical precedent of what precisely an intervention in Afghanistan meant – a drawn out, costly and likely indecisive war (ask the UK and Russia). Iraq presented Bush with another opportunity to complete what had been left unfinished in 1991. Its oil also offered the US with a very tempting carrot.

Obama
Since the heady days of George W, the US has come to a realization. It cannot intervene without significant cost. Indeed, since Obama has come to power, he has drawn down troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and focused on targeted drone strikes aimed at disrupting terrorist networks. This is a much more 'intelligent' use of force and is a deviation from the strong arm tactics of the Bush-era. Obama has also calculated that involvement in Syria does not suit the US interest at this time. It has had two years to intervene and has not as yet. If it wanted Syria's dwindling resources, as many people contend is their main objective, they would have intervened already. Dropping the Syrian regime does also not suit its regional ambitions. Syria may be labeled an enemy, but it's an enemy that the US and Israel can live with. Indeed, the Alawite regime contains the Sunni majority, which precedent suggests, is open to influence from al-Qaeda aligned groups. Indeed, the growing Islamist threat in Syria poses the West with a major dilemma. Support the rebels and possibly open the country up to control by Islamist extremists.

But what to do about the use of chemical weapons? Lets be clear, conventional weapons have done more harm than chemical weapons in Syria to date. HOWEVER, if the Syrians are allowed to continue to use WMD's what stops them from deploying them on a large scale basis? It is this possibility that the US wants to prevent. So a punitive strike against the Syrian regime sends a very clear message "Don't use chemical weapons or else".