Hurray for the Hawks

Why Obama has so far got it right over Syria

If the Syrian and Russian offer is genuine and Assad is prepared to hand over his chemical weapons stockpiles then there is only one side in the recent argument over intervention that should be celebrating, not that there is much to celebrate about in Syria itself. The hawks and certainly not the doves deserve credit at this particular impasse and only more of the same can bring this prospective diplomatic solution to fruition.

If, and currently this is still a big if, Mr Assad is genuine then who would be obtuse enough to suppose it was anything other than the threat of western cruise missiles that has brought him to the negotiating table. Scared of a shallow grave delivered upon fellow dictators courtesy of the US armed forces, the results of what can only be imagined to have been a probe to test the ground for viability of the use of chemical weapons has come back negative. Unlike its sickening negligence and callous indifference during the Iran-Iraq war or the chemical annihilation of ethnic groups within Iraq itself the international community led by the only actor with the potential for credible and competent action is finally responding in the affirmative.  

The weasel objection that force itself has not yet been used thus far, therefore vindicating the  position of the non-interventionists, is just that. The sustained and continued indifference and disinterest that would have been the response of choice of many critics of the US offers nothing but an invitation for more proliferation. The style of EU foreign policy show cased in the 1990s over Bosnia which wins so many noble peace prizes is not a foreign policy but instead a decision to resign from the responsibility of having one and does nothing to bend the will of undesirable characters such as Mr Assad to our own.

Quite subtly and perhaps a paradox for some, the use of force in cases such as Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq to punish the crossing of such vaunted ‘Red Lines’ is done with the hope that no such force shall be necessary again and here in lies the real meaning of deterrence. Credible and predictable response to limited yet clear lines being broken is what is necessary to inspire the fear that we might now be witnessing in the Assad camp. Amazingly nothing is new in the realm of realpolitik, if man desires peace then he must prepare for war and those who wish to speak softly must insure that they also carry a big stick.

However, those who don’t quite feel that it is within them to bow down to the logic of the hawk could perhaps appreciate events as the triumph of the owl which we famously saw over Cuba in October 1962 (sincerest apologies if this is becoming too ornithological). The combination of the ready deployment of military assets and tough posturing to impart a belief and confidence in the overwhelming superiority of US arms, especially over Russian onlookers, with a sufficient enough pause to gage reactions is a relative master stroke on the part of president Obama who is not always a deserving recipient of praise in this arena, much like Kennedy before him. Again the word that must be stressed is ‘if’ as it is still early days to know if the Syrians are bluffing or not but if all is as it seems on the surface then congratulations might well be in order.

Triumph however is not yet secured and success in the next stage of securing a credible disarmament deal will require more of the same hard posturing and most importantly perseverance with the threat of force which might well have to be actualised at some point in the future. The ‘lessons from Iraq’ have not been far from the lips of most commentators however for most this means affirming and reaffirming the principle that all intervention is bad intervention especially if it is conducted under the banner of the stars and stripes. The cack handed logic at work in this unconditionally anti-American sentiment, rather resembles the idiotic black and white George Bush-esque hubris which it so strongly despises. Shamefully however we have found that such crude analysis is the opinion of the majority of the British parliament. Surely one of the real and pertinent lessons from Iraq is that if conducted through the UN without any accompanying enforcement of military might, then disarmament processes can wind on without results for over a decade, as was the case with Saddam’s Iraq. If the Russians block or hinder the processes at the UN as they continually did over Iraq then the US must pursue a deal outside of the UN with Assad using the threat of military action to present and cement such an ultimatum.

It of course should be remembered that it was such a bilateral agreement that was used to disarm Colonel Gadhafi of his chemical weapons stock pile. Interestingly this took place after the US, once backed by the UK, showed that it was willing and capable to use military force to remove its enemies if they continually violated key tenants of international law. Gadhafi strangely enough did not go to Kofi Annan or Banki Moon to hand over his WMD but instead went to George Bush and Tony Blair, those so much maligned figures. Boringly for some Mr Blair’s question as to who gains if Western resolve to use military force crumbles is once again  the prescient question that should be at the forefront of the discussion of this subject.

The central argument of this article might well be stalked by the spectre of the word ‘if’ but it is the first time in two years of war that a clear and tangible policy response can be pursued with regards to the conflict and perhaps a small positive can be redeemed from the immense suffering which shows little sign of stopping anytime soon.