Are US and Russia only playing games in Syria? (English Version) Amar Ujala 28 Apr 18
Post the launch of a chemical attack on the town of Douma on 7th Apr, the west was aghast. The anger over the earlier incident of poisoning of Skripal in London had yet to recede. Trump vowed action, while Russia warned of consequences. For the US, Syria was a war where it was trapped, with almost no exit. Trump had recently announced the withdrawal of US troops from the country but was compelled to put his decision on hold. By retaliating, Trump could show his support to the victims, while diverting his failure to withdraw.
The US presently maintains a force of about 2000 soldiers, mainly special forces and engineers, who operate in Eastern Syria alongside the Syrian Democratic forces (SDF), a Kurdish-led group of militias. They have liberated most of their region from the ISIS, though pockets remain. The Euphrates divides the US backed forces from the Russian and Iranian backed Syrian forces.
The US is aware that if it withdraws, Syrian forces, backed by Russia and Iran would seek to retake the territory held by the US backed SDF. Simultaneously, Turkey would seek to destroy these forces to secure its own borders. Hence, The US would remain trapped in Syria for a prolonged duration, despite the ranting and raving of Trump.
Trump announced his decision to strike Syria and was backed by UK and France. Despite Russian threats and warmongering, the strikes were launched on the early morning of 14th Apr. Three sites were targeted. These, as per western press, were associated with the chemical weapon capabilities of Syria. As per reports, a total of 110 missiles were fired. Syria has claimed that its air defence systems intercepted most of the missiles, however a few struck their targets including its research centre in Barzeh.
Russia reported that none of the missiles struck areas close to Russian air and naval bases in the country, which remain under the protection of their air defence systems. As per Syrian reports, three civilians were wounded in the strike. The US state department called the attack as a ‘one time shot’ aimed at sending a strong message. It further claimed that important infrastructure was destroyed which would result in a setback for the Syrian regime. Russia and Iran condemned the strike.
A few issues emerged in subsequent briefings. The US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dunford, stated, ‘We used the normal deconfliction channel to deconflict airspace. We did not coordinate targets’, with Russia. The French government stated that the Russians were warned beforehand. Their defence minister stated, ‘we do not seek confrontation and we refuse any possibility of military escalation and that is the reason we ensured that the Russians were warned beforehand.
While addressing the European Parliament, French president Macron stated, ‘These strikes don’t necessarily resolve anything, but I think they were important’. He added that the intervention was for the honour of the international community. Hence what flows was whether the strikes achieved their aims, or were they only a display for the world, because Russia other than calling a special UN Security Council meeting, did not react.
Nikki Haley, the US permanent representative in the UN Security Council, stated that further sanctions would be announced against Russia for its support to the Syrian regime, which was subsequently denied by the White House. This confusion reinforces that the strikes were possibly only a demonstration from the west, to indicate to their allies that they acted.
UN representatives from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are visiting Douma to confirm the use of chemical weapons. Presently, Douma is in the hands of Syrian government forces, with the rebels having withdrawn. Whether they would discover use of chemical weapons or even who used them would be known over time. Ultimately, like most other investigations this too would remain unclear.
Syria had, about four years ago, surrendered all its chemical weapons. A strike on a chemical factory or storage facility or even a research establishment which is actively being used, would have released chemicals or an immense vapour in the region, easily detectable. The storage facilities struck were near civilian populated areas and would have resulted in civilian casualties. The same did not happen as the strike possibly was on empty buildings with nothing within them.
A strike of such immense proportions as being projected by western powers, would have caused irreparable damage and casualties. Syrian claims of only three injured belies the true intention and nature of the strike. These is a possibility that the warning given to Russia to avoid escalation may have worked in the favour of Syria, which could have withdrawn its manpower, however if the stockpiles did exist, then their destruction would have been evident.
The US claiming it is assessing post-strike damage even after a fortnight, the strike was either ineffective or only a game being played. The west, desperate over years to change the Syrian regime of Assad has realized that with Russian and Iranian backing, it would never succeed. Russia and Iran have established their bases in Syria adding to western problems.
Israel, which shares a border with Syria and has in the recent past launched its own missile strikes on Iranian bases remains wary, but silent. Its major worry is expansion of Iranian influence and hold in the region. Thus, it is interacting with Russia and Turkey to keep Iran at bay. The latest to jump into the bandwagon is Saudi Arabia, which is in discussion with the US to deploy forces in the country.
The strike possibly was only a show to the world that the west is concerned, whereas it was an expression of their frustration on being unable to fulfil their aim of overthrowing Assad. Hence when Macron stated that the intervention would not resolve anything and was for honour of the international community, he was possibly the only leader who spoke the truth.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army