Having applied, until now, the humanitarian military intervention model
already tested in Yugoslavia and more recently in Libya, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization is forced to rewrite its script for Syria.
It will now adopt the same strategy that was used in Iraq: To besiege
the country, in defiance of the population, and weaken it sufficiently
for the next assault.
NATO is currently reviewing its strategy for Syria.
After eight months of low intensity war and despite the infiltration of
many Arab and Pashtun fighters, Syrian society has not fractured. To be
sure, some religious clashes took place in Deraa, Homs and Banias, but
they were not widespread and were short lived. For the Alliance, it is
no longer realistic to think that it can rapidly foment a civil war to
justify an "international humanitarian operation."
This realization comes at a time when the ad hoc military
coalition is in the throes of a crisis. During the war against Libya,
the initiative had been spearheaded by France and the UK. However, the
two European heavyweights proved they were incapable of mobilizing the
necessary resources. In fact, three quarters of the war effort was
provided or funded by the Pentagon. Above all, the deployment of
inadequate devices could have wrought disaster had Libya decided to
attack NATO’s ships and helicopters [1].
The problem is much worse in the case of Syria, which boasts a
population four times larger than that of Libya, and an army seasoned by
previous regional conflicts.
No comments:
Post a Comment