BOMBING SYRIA TO SAVE SYRIA:SOME REFLECTION ON THE NEW WESTERN COALITION.

Instead of standing alone without its key European ally,the US has warmly received the UK in its air campaign against ISIL,adding a more serious weight to what is now a global coalition against violent extremism. But this is clearly unconnected with the aim of this article looking at the tragic consequences such action will bring to Syrians who are already exhausted by war. Rather than celebrate some pro-active measure underlined by the recurring theme of self-defense in international relations,it is extremely important to assess the profits this new ebullient coalition stand to make in war-torn Syria.

I would like to make clear that,in 2013,the US president,Barack Obama,mounted tension on the international scene on the basis of some "red line". At that time there was an increasing urge to carry out a surgical operation in Syria against the Assad regime. There are two ways to understand what happened;one is to be aware that Obama drew what he called "an international red line" for Assad;and the other is to know that Assad crossed the red line after what was allegedly the use of chemical weapon against unharmed civilians by the regime.
The latter's act,as it was understood,was clearly the green light eagerly needed to proceed with military action,and any corresponding event,if there was to be,would not only justify the operation but also strengthen the common resolve to ultimately effect regime change in war-torn Syria. But that was never going to happen as China,Russian and Iran shored up their support for the troubled president. And basically,it all seemed that homeland security was not going to be a major cause for concern in 2013. For all they cared ISIS could wreck more havoc on the regime as long as it is in line with intelligence plans,and more opposition was going to increase the gradual destruction of an enemy institution. Washington must do nothing but pussy-footing!

Anyone who does not understand why the earliest move to bomb Syria failed as Congress disapproved and as the British parliament turned down the initial proposal,may not be aware that there was no genuine reason to go to Syria. This may have been based on the lack of profit or,at best,a strategy to buy enough time for its desire to see Assad go down the drain. Whatever the reason or pretense,it will be unfair to turn a blind eye to the hypocrisy of the US or UK involvement with Syria,any day. Another step further to see the coalition in its true light must surely begin by highlighting fact about Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent chemical attack on the Kurds. They once told us that it was right to use chemical weapon in Kuwait;but doing same in Syria amounted to war crime. Hypocrisy is the right word for a country as morally bankrupt as the United States of America! As if that is not enough, we have not forgotten that the invasion of the two East Asian countries,Pakistan and Afghanistan,following the 9/11,left much to be desired. It is easy to see what became of the invaded countries after their departure. The countries are what can now be called a small corner of hell. More's the pity!

L.J