US allies left red faced

By Dinouk Colombage-Wednesday, 04 Sep 2013

"This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people." US Secretary of State, John Kerry When the United States Secretary of State, John Kerry, announced that his government did not doubt Syrian President, Bashar Al-Assad, was responsible for the chemical attack that claimed over 1,400 lives in the suburbs outside Damascus, he did so establishing the US' aim of responding militarily. Similarly, in the UK, Prime Minister David Cameron, recalled Parliament earlier from its summer break and held an emergency Cabinet meeting to decide how best to respond to the attacks in Syria. For the public, the reactions were mixed, with many criticizing the Western powers for having withheld any form of meaningful intervention in the Syrian crisis until now. Others were more optimistic, believing that a military solution was the only way the Assad regime could be toppled. However, neither the public nor their respective governments were waiting for the UN weapons inspection team to submit a report regarding the attack. Kerry criticized the Assad regime for having delayed providing access to the area, which came under the chemical attack, claiming they had given themselves enough time to destroy any evidence. Disregarding the UN weapons inspection team, the question was not if but when the West would launch an attack on Syria. Media was reporting that the Free Syrian Army had been informed by US sources to expect an attack within days. UK Parliament vote On Thursday (29), the UK Parliament voted on military action in Syria, the motion was defeated by 13 votes ruling out the possibility of joining a US-led strike on Syria. Suddenly, the drums of war emanating from the Western powers had gone quiet; Cameron moved hastily to express his disappointment over the vote but added he would respect their decision. Over in the US, the support for a military attack on Syria had suddenly mellowed, with Congress criticizing Barack Obama and his regime for hastily committing themselves to a conflict. In fact, the administration was forced to release an intelligence briefing highlighting their belief the attack was carried out by Assad. Obama, speaking to the US public, stressed that it was their 'obligation as a leader in the world' to hold rogue regimes accountable. He added that they would be willing to go into a conflict by themselves, if necessary.

Despite the US maintaining their stance on a military involvement in Syria, the war rhetoric coming for the States has reduced with the announcement that the UK would not be getting involved. The United States, since the end of World War II, have prided themselves on being the leaders in resolving conflicts, either through diplomatic or military means. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, wars in the Middle East and espionage games with the Soviet Union during the Cold War have all seen the US at the forefront. However, these situations have always seen America supported by its Allies. When George W. Bush committed the USA to the war on terror, he did so knowing he had the full support of the UK. While the US has professed to be the leader of world security, the 20th century has highlighted that it does so only with the support of allies. Obama's pledge that they would go into a conflict with Syria by themselves if necessary, will not be taken seriously. At this point in time French President, Francois Hollande, has stressed his country's commitment to 'punish' Assad for the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people. France's insistence France's continued insistence that they would militarily intervene in the Syrian crisis has prompted the US to continue along their path of war. The test of the Obama administration will come if and when France also withdraws from any potential conflict. At present over 64% of the French population opposes a war in Syria, similar opposition emerged during Bush's war on terror. On that occasion France refused to involve themselves. With a parliamentary debate expected in France over any possible intervention, the US will be watching carefully before proceeding. While the debates may continue around the world over the West's involvement in Syria, the people of the country seem divided over whether or not a US intervention will be welcomed. The Syrian conflict has dragged on for over two years and claimed thousands of lives. For months the Free Syrian Army has called upon the West to assist them in the battle, these pleas have fallen on deaf ears. With the allegations of chemical weapons being used, the international community have been forced to take notice. The reaction of the US, and the rest of the world, has left many doubting the sincerity of their concerns. With questions being raised over the intentions of a military strike, it will certainly leave the US struggling to find supporters, as was seen in the withdrawal of UK support. The assurances by the US Secretary of State that the chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian regime and that it would be met with force has now left the Obama administration red faced. To pull back now would show them as weak and indecisive, while to continue will see them facing the unusual prospect of entering a conflict without any allies. Either way, it is clear that the change of heart of the US regarding the Syria will certainly cost them.