One of the main features of the current geopolitical realities in the world is that the very concept of international law has been utterly discredited. In its turn, this appears to be a direct result of the recent actions of the U.S. in the international arena, which are being aimed to promote ‘peace and democracy’ and which take place in the form of American planes dropping bombs on countries that supposedly suffer from the lack of democracy.
The deterioration of the mentioned concept, however, is exactly what causes the number of the ongoing armed-conflicts in the world to continue increasing rather exponentially. However, even though this situation may indeed be short-term beneficiary to the American economy, in the sense of postponing the time when it eventually collapses, the fact that America actively contributes to the process of the world becoming ever more volatile, cannot be considered the effective solution to the country’s problems, in this respect.
Therefore, it is not only that the U.S. should refrain from deciding to proceed with invading Syria – the U.S. top-officials should come up with the official apology for having helped turning the area (Syria, Iraq) into the battleground of ‘everybody against everybody’ – something that produced a powerful blow on the international reputation of America. In this paper, I will explore the validity of this suggestion at length.
Even a brief glance at the history of America’s recent involvement in the situation in Syria, reveals that it may well be the case that those in charge of designing foreign policies in this country may not be entirely adequate, in the mental sense of this word. The rationale behind this suggestion is quite apparent – even though, throughout the course of the 2013-2014 period, the country’s top-officials never ceased justifying the intention of Obama’s Administration to strike Syria, the 2013 official reasons, as to why it needed to be done, differ from those of 2014 rather drastically.
For example, in 2013 the State Department’s officials used to insist that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons, which is why he needed to be removed from the office – regardless of what happened to be the stance of the U.N. Security Council, in this respect. Back then, the U.S. considered al-Assad a ‘bloody dictator’, while providing Syrian ‘fighters for freedom’ (which consisted of Muslim radicals of the worst kind) with much needed, diplomatic, financial and even military support (hence, the ‘phenomenon’ of them having been armed much better than the opposing governmental troops).
That is, it was namely the removal of al-Assad, which would have been the main objective of American military intervention in Syria, had it taken place in 2013: “Without forceful American action, al-Assad’s latest maneuvers constitute a victory for his regime and its top allies, Iran and Hezbollah” (Ghitis par. 12). Nevertheless, in 2014, the State Department’s spokespersons, began to sing an entirely different song, while still insisting that Syria needs to be attacked.
According to them, it is no longer al-Assad, who represents the ‘greatest evil’ in the area, but the organization ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria): “ISIS has some known strongholds – in Raqqa, Syria, for example – which could be neutralized by airstrikes… But airstrikes have their limitations” (Masi par. 4). We can well wonder what may be the official excuse for the U.S. to be wanting to ‘spread democracy’ to Syria in the year 2015, if let us say ISIS disappears just as miraculously, as it appeared?
The discursive significance of this rhetorical question is quite apparent – the America’s actual intervention-agenda, concerned with Syria, is about something different than such particularly ‘bright’ State Department’s representatives, as Jenifer Psaki, would like us to believe. What that maybe be? For those who understand the discursive significance of the so-called ‘democratic’ revolutions, orchestrated by the CIA, which recently took place in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine and consequently turned these countries into nothing short of ‘hell on Earth, answering this question will not prove much of a challenge.
The U.S. is directly interested in setting as many ‘hot spots’ throughout the world, as possible. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that, as of 2017-2019, the America’s budget deficit is expected to reach staggering $18.7 trillion (Zimmer par. 2).
However, unlike what it happened to be the case throughout the nineties, the FRS is now being in no position of allowing its ‘dollar-printing machine’ to operate in the full-power mode – the emergence of new powerful players in the arena of international politics, such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, predetermined this situation. After all, due to this emergence, the U.S. can longer be considered the undisputed ‘master of the world’ – something that even as recently as a decade ago, used to allow this country to simply print out the tons of valueless ‘green paper’ (US Dollars), that they could be traded in exchange for the world’s most valuable natural resources (hence, ensuring the continual prosperity of America).
The reason for this is that, after having been deprived of its status as the world’s only ‘super-power’, it now becomes increasingly harder for the U.S. to ensure the appeal of the so-called ‘U.S. Treasury Bonds’, the selling of which internationally (primarily, to Russia and China) used to allow the country’s economy to remain comparatively unaffected by inflation. After all, the lack of America’s dominance in the world naturally causes more and more potential investors to recognize that the U.S. government will never be able to take care of its debts.
This leaves the U.S. with no other option but trying to destabilize as many other countries, as possible, so that in the surrounding ‘sea of instability’, America would stand out as a ‘safe sanctuary’, which in turn will ensure the continual popularity of the mentioned ‘treasuries’ – pure and simple.
As of right now, the U.S. is interested in establishing its foothold in Syria, in order to use this country (after it becomes ‘democratic’), as the base for spreading chaos to Iran, and consequently to Russia and China. This explains why the claims of the U.S. top-officials, as to the sheer danger of ISIS, should not be taken seriously – one year ago, the U.S. was pumping the would-be ISIS with money and weapons, because the ‘freedom loving’ Islamic cannibals were expected to do the America’s ‘dirty job’ – getting rid of al-Assad.
However, since Islamic radicals from ISIS got out of the CIA’s control, they instantly fell out of favor with President Obama, known for his unmatched talent in playing basketball. America has found new ‘fighters for democracy’ – the Ukrainian Neo-Nazis (Parry par. 6) who, after having ceased the political power in Ukraine, by the mean of an armed coup, declared the country’s Russian-speaking citizens in the East ‘terrorists’ and began exterminating them en mass, while applauded by Jenifer Psaki.
Does it mean that the ISIS fanatics should not be attacked in Syria? Most definitely not. However, it is highly unlikely that the U.S. has any moral right to lead fight against ISIS – it should first apologize to the world for having spawned this monster, in the first place. As Vladimir Putin noted: “President Obama spoke about the Islamic State (ISIS) as one of the threats. But who helped to arm the people who were fighting Assad in Syria? Who created a favorable political and informational climate for them? Who pushed for arms supplies?” (“Meeting” par. 65). Apparently, for the U.S. top-officials, fighting ISIS is nothing but the excuse to invade Syria, as something that has the value of a ‘thing-in-itself’, as it may help to delay the collapse of the American economy for another few years. Yet, trying to delay this prospect is not the best way of addressing the issue – especially if it is going to be accomplished at the expense of continuing to violate the most basic conventions of international law.
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, in defense of the suggestion that the U.S. should not embark on the military intervention of Syria, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Apparently, the time has come for American politicians to consider the would-be consequences of a particular course of action, they intend to undertake in the international arena, before this action takes place. Thus, it will only be appropriate to conclude this paper by reinstating once again that for America, invading Syria is simply not an option – especially given the fact that the democracy-related rhetoric, deployed by the U.S. high-ranking officials, has long ago been deprived of the last remains of its former legitimacy.
Works Cited
Ghitis, Frida 5 Reasons the U.S. Must Intervene in Syria. 2013. Web.
Masi, Alessandria. Does the US Need Ground Forces to Fight ISIS in Iraq, Syria? The Impact of Airstrikes vs. Combat Troops. 2014. Web.
Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club. 2014. Web.
Parry, Robert. Ukraine’s Neo-Nazi Imperative. 2014. Web.
Zimmer, Ed. Mid-Term Budget Numbers: Someone’s Wearing Rose-Colored Glasses. 2009. Web.