Obama’s War

The Middle East is once again in the center of chaos as of late August. U.S. President Barack Obama， who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2009， has been intent on launching a military strike against Syria since August 28 and has sought authorization from Congress before taking military action.

A hard decision

The White House sent Congress a draft resolution on August 31 seeking approval of a military strike in order to “deter， disrupt， prevent and degrade the potential” for future use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in Syria. It promised that military action will be “limited” and will not involve sending U.S. troops to Syria. Obama’s decision was aimed at punishing Bashar al-Assad’s Government for the alleged August 21 use of chemical weapons on its citizens. On August 21， a chemical weapon attack hit the suburbs of Damascus， the Syrian capital， reportedly killing at least 1，429 people， including 426 children. The Syrian Government denied responsibility. But Obama， in spite of the Syrian Government’s protests， insisted on using military force.

One year ago， Obama warned the Syrian Government against using chemical weapons， calling it a “red line” that Washington would use to conduct a military attack.

“Obama’s accusation against the Syrian Government is untenable. There’s no concrete evidence proving which side in Syria had used chemical weapons. What can be confirmed now is only existence of chemical weapons in Syria，” Liu Yueqin， a senior research fellow on Syrian studies with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences （CASS）， said to Beijing Review. She pointed out that without the UN Chemical Weapons Inspection Team’s investigation report， such accusation is not creditable.

“China’s position is clear-cut. China is firmly opposed to the use of chemical weapons by any party in Syria，” said Hong Lei， spokesman of Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs， in August. He affirmed China’s support for the UN Secretariat in carrying out an independent， objective， impartial and professional investigation on the alleged use of chemical weapons in accordance with UN resolutions. Hong urged all sides not to make prejudgments before the truth is uncovered.

Jia Xiudong， a senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies （CIIS）， believed that the United States has already decided and long been preparing for military intervention， including guiding public opinions through the media. Now the White House believes it has caught the Assad administration red-handed.

Syria’s crisis has lasted over two years， during which time many humanitarian disasters have occurred in the country. Why have Western countries decided to launch a military strike on the Assad administration now？

“Recent changes in the regional situation and the U.S. geostrategic interests drove Washington in the direction of military intervention，” Liu concluded.

She explained that since June， fresh crisis in Egypt had directed the world focus away from Syria. During the past two months， Syrian government troops had regained many occupied cities from the opposition， greatly shifting the country’s balance of power. Liu stressed that the Syrian opposition’s connection with Al Qaeda previously prevented Washington from launching military intervention in support of the opposition. “As government troops have regained advantages in the country， Washington would rather launch a military strike now，” said Liu. “The current situation proves that if there’s not external intervention， Syria actually has the ability to heal and put an end to the crisis.”

The Syrian crisis has lasted longer and involved more outside interests than any of the recent flare-ups in the Middle East. Located in the heart of the Arab world， Syria was once a French colony. During the Cold War， it was under the Soviet Union’s influence. With its complicated ethnic and religious makeup， special relationship with Lebanon and alliance with Iran， Syria has long been a source of trouble for the West.

Possible consequences

Although Washington claimed the military strike would be limited， observers warned that once the United States launches military intervention， it must pay a financial and diplomatic price. They predicted that the regional situation in Syria and the Middle East would become more complicated， and China should take on more responsibilities as an influential power.

Liu pointed out two reasons as to why Obama has not launched the military strike yet： First is the needed U.S. congressional authority， and second is the UN investigation report. If Obama conducts the air strike without UN authority， then his action’s validity will be questioned. UN Secretary General Ban Kimoon warned on September 4 that a rush to strike Syria should be restrained until the UN investigation into Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons is completed.

Liu went on to note that before the Iraq war， the United States similarly accused Saddam Hussein of having weapons of mass destruction， but that accusation was never proven. Obama’s proposal to adopt military intervention might yet trigger new rounds of anti-war demonstrations.

Moreover， the White House proposal to take military action against Syria has been strongly opposed inside the United States. A survey carried out by the Pew Research Center over the weekend found that 48 percent of Americans oppose “conducting military air strikes” against Syria compared to 29 percent who support such an action.

Many Americans believe their country has spent too much money in the Middle East during the past 10 years. Statistics show that the United States spent over $1.6 trillion in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from 2002 to 2008. Observers said that Washington might engage Syria in a“limited” intervention similar to that in Kosovo under the Bill Clinton administration. During the Kosovo War in 1999， NATO used 1，200 fighters， 1，500 more cruise missiles and over 13，000 tons of ammunition， at a total cost of $100 billion.

Although the United States has begun to recover from the financial crisis， it has yet to cut down on various expenses to cope with current financial difficulties. According to reports from Stars and Stripes， the country had decided to cut $500 billion from its defense budget during 2013-21， of which $46 billion in cuts will come in the next seven months. The U.S. Government’s proposed expenditure for incidental military operations overseas in 2013 is only $88.4 billion. Under the twin pressures of slow economic growth and growing defense costs， will the United States dare to challenge its citizens’ anti-war sentiment and its financial dilemma to start a new war in a country thousands of miles away？

Liu Li， another researcher on Middle East studies with CIIS， said the turmoil that began in the Middle East two years ago has become a fight over regional control and strategic interests. A larger crisis could be looming in the Middle East.

Once the U.S. military strikes occur， millions of Syrian refugees will rush to neighboring states， causing a heavy financial toll. In addition， the refugees of different ethnic groups and religious sects could further strain the fragile political and religious balance in the region.

Liu explained that Syria is relevant to different powers’ interests for historical reasons. Western countries headed by France and the United States will compete with Russia for geostrategic interests and regional influences. Moreover， if the Assad administration is toppled， the country will descend into endless ethnic and religious strife. Ultimately， Western countries will have to have a showdown with Syria’s neighbor and ally， Iran.

China continually insists on its policy of nonintervention in the Middle East affairs， though some have argued that China should play a more active role in this region due to its growing influence on the world stage.

Syria is not such a far distance from China. The crisis in Syria has influenced the stability of west China， Liu said， suggesting that China should strengthen communications with other powers to guarantee the strategic security and stability in its western areas.

Yin Gang， a researcher on Middle East studies from the CASS， said that if Syria undergoes major turbulence， a chain reaction could follow that would alter the entire region， and China’s interests would be damaged. Currently， China’s investment and cooperative stakes in Syria are at risk of taking huge losses. Moreover， China’s reliance on energy resources in the Middle East has been on the rise with its economic growth.“Like it or not， China is bound to become more involved in the Middle East affairs，” he concluded.