By Alex Kane: Foor Big Pushers of the War in Iraq!
now gunning for intervention in Syria, consequences be damned. The news from Syria over the past week has been dizzying, but if you can keep your head on straight, you will recognize an uptick in strident calls for American intervention in Syria, though it remains unlikely the Obama administration will commit to full scale war. Over the weekend, the Israeli air force reportedly bombed Syrian military installations in Damascus, a move that marked the most significant and direct international intervention yet, in a civil war that has turned into a proxy battle between regional forces. The Israeli strike over the weekend, followed another Israeli attack last week, that was reportedly meant to prevent Iranian weapons from being transferred through Syria to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, a bitter enemy of the Jewish state. The Israeli attacks come over two years into the grinding Syrian conflict, which started out as part of the wave of Arab uprisings, but has transformed into an armed civil war, that has taken the lives of tens of thousands of people. The Israeli strikes have been hailed by war hawks as proof that the US and Western allies, can easily pummel the Syrian regime to the ground, and pave the way for a rebel victory. Calls for intervention have been ratcheting up since Israel, Britain, France and finally the US concluded that there had been chemical weapons use by the Assad regime, a red line the Obama administration has warned Syria not to cross. But the chemical weapons use claims were muddied up yesterday, when a UN investigator said that it may have been the Syrian rebels that used sarin gas, not the Assad regime. If the UN investigator is right, and there is no guarantee of that, it should complicate the calls for the US to directly arm the rebels. But considering their track record, proponents for more intervention can't be stopped by much. Since the news broke of chemical weapons use, war hawks and their allies in the US, have taken to the air waves and Op Ed pages to push for US intervention. What is missing from their analysis, is recognition that US intervention to depose Assad, would lead to a power vacuum with unknown consequences, that the US would become a target for those opposed to the West, including among the rebel groups, that America has a poor track record of intervening in the Middle East, and that the vast majority of Americans has a poor track record of intervening in the Middle East, and that the vast majority of Americans have no desire to get embroiled in another war. Also not on the table: A serious attempt to negotiate, with all international powers, an agreement to end the fighting, and begin a transition in Syria. While that won't be easy, the US and its allies have stymied chances of that in the past.