Did the Syria Attack Make Sense?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, NB] Telegraph-Journal

 

The United States, Britain, and France on April 13 fired cruise missiles at three sites linked to Syria’s chemical weapons program.

It was, they declared, in response to the Assad regime’s reported chemical attack April 7 in Douma.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg expressed support for the strikes by its three member states.

Canada, too, “supports the decision by the United States, the United Kingdom and France to take action”, Prime Minister Trudeau said. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland added that it was “clear to Canada” that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack.

But the reaction to the attacks is playing out differently in Britain and France.

The leader of the British opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, criticized Prime Minister Teresa May, arguing that “bombs won’t save lives or bring about peace.”He called the attack “legally questionable.”

Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, said that May was wrong not to seek parliamentary consent. 

“Riding the coattails of an erratic U.S. president is no substitute for a mandate from the House of Commons,” he remarked.

Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, tweeted: “Air strikes have not resolved situation in Syria so far.” She stated that foreign policy should be set by the British Parliament, not Washington.

Many Britons still remember Tony Blair’s decision in 2003 to join George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq.

In France, President Emmanuel Macron has also faced criticism, mainly from the political left and right.

The leader of the left-wing France Insoumise (France Unbowed) Party, Jean-Luc Melenchon, accused Macron of attacking Syria without proof of chemical weapons use and without a United Nations mandate, a European Union agreement or a vote of the French Parliament.

“This is a North American adventure of revenge, an irresponsible escalation,” he declared. “France deserves better than this role. It must be the force of international order and peace.”

Marine Le Pen, the head of the Rassemblement National (National Rally), the new name for the National Front, said much the same. France had lost a chance to “appear on the international scene as an independent power.” The party’s deputy leader, Nicolas Bay, called Macron “a vassal” of the U.S.

American policy towards the Syrian war does seem to be incoherent. First of all, why make a chemical attack that killed less than 50 people different in kind, not just in degree, from the half million already dead via “conventional” weapons? 

These were not really “weapons of mass destruction,” unlike atomic or biological weapons. This has become a fetish and excuse for military action.

Second, what exactly is the U.S. accomplishing? When Hitler bombed London or when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, the actions were part of larger war aims. 

They didn’t do it as just a one-time “lesson” and then went home. Theywere trying to win a war.

Is Washington trying to overthrow Assad? If so, they have to do more than shoot missiles at him every few months. 

Trump has indicated that the American aim all along has been to destroy the Islamic State and other Islamist groups. But obviously what’s left of these groups benefit from weakening Assad. 

The only thing that makes sense is that the Americans, British and French were warning Russia that they can do to Sevastopol, St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad what they just did in Syria.