By: Rajesh RajagopalanIt seems reasonably certain now that the US and its allies will launch a military assault on Syria to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons.
The strikes are likely to be limited with the objective of deterring further Syrian use of chemical weapons rather than to change the regime.
In some ways, the Obama administration has only itself to blame for the predicament it finds itself in.
First, frightened by the possibility of being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern quagmire, Washington refused to do anything to shape the course of the brutal civil war in Syria.
While most sensible strategists would indeed want to steer clear of a civil war in which there are more likely to be sinners than winners, the problem in Syria was that Washington's refusal to get involved ensured that some pretty unsavoury characters affiliated with Sunni extremists and al-Qaeda shouldered the burden of opposing the Assad regime.
The consequence is that Washington is faced with difficult choices: stay aloof and see Assad win or attack Assad and help the even less palatable Sunni extremists. The lesson should be clear: great powers will almost always have a dog in every fight, whether they want to or not.
Second, Obama drew an ill-advised red line by committing the US to action if chemical weapons were used.
He probably hoped that not even Assad would cross this red line because the international taboo against chemical weapons use is fairly robust.
With the exception of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the late 1980s, there had not been any instance of significant use of such weapons since World War II.
Obama may have calculated that this would keep the US out of the war, but like many such red lines, this has now trapped him into taking action.
New Delhi has to be pragmatic in its response to any Western attack on Syria, especially in the light of its own concerns with regard to chemical weapons. As a country with nuclear weapons, India should want to prevent the spread of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially chemical weapons which are seen as easier and cheaper alternatives to nuclear weapons.
Copyright © 2013 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
The strikes are likely to be limited with the objective of deterring further Syrian use of chemical weapons rather than to change the regime.
In some ways, the Obama administration has only itself to blame for the predicament it finds itself in.
First, frightened by the possibility of being dragged into yet another Middle Eastern quagmire, Washington refused to do anything to shape the course of the brutal civil war in Syria.
While most sensible strategists would indeed want to steer clear of a civil war in which there are more likely to be sinners than winners, the problem in Syria was that Washington's refusal to get involved ensured that some pretty unsavoury characters affiliated with Sunni extremists and al-Qaeda shouldered the burden of opposing the Assad regime.
The consequence is that Washington is faced with difficult choices: stay aloof and see Assad win or attack Assad and help the even less palatable Sunni extremists. The lesson should be clear: great powers will almost always have a dog in every fight, whether they want to or not.
Second, Obama drew an ill-advised red line by committing the US to action if chemical weapons were used.
He probably hoped that not even Assad would cross this red line because the international taboo against chemical weapons use is fairly robust.
With the exception of Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the late 1980s, there had not been any instance of significant use of such weapons since World War II.
Obama may have calculated that this would keep the US out of the war, but like many such red lines, this has now trapped him into taking action.
New Delhi has to be pragmatic in its response to any Western attack on Syria, especially in the light of its own concerns with regard to chemical weapons. As a country with nuclear weapons, India should want to prevent the spread of all weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially chemical weapons which are seen as easier and cheaper alternatives to nuclear weapons.
Copyright © 2013 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.