Ever since the end of the First World War, the Middle East has been a tinderbox full of really dry wood just waiting for a spark. And we can blame the Europeans for this, specifically Great Britain and France: once they defeated the Ottomans, they carved the region up with absolutely no regard for demographic or ethnic boundaries. For example, the former Ottoman provinces of Mosul (Kurdish), Baghdad (Sunni), and Basra (Shi'ite) were lumped together by the British - in order to better exploit the vast petroleum reserves in each province - and became Iraq. We've seen how well that worked out. Woodrow Wilson, who championed self-determination, was incensed, but what could he do? The Europeans loved their empires, after all.
Syria, specifically, was an example of how not to create a country: it was the French side of the aforementioned land-grab where a puppet king was installed, until the French got sick of him. Then, 16 years of struggle against French occupation and the Second World War. In 1946, the French withdrew, but the late 1940's saw war with Israel and several coups d'état. After the Suez Crisis in 1956-57, Syria formally aligned with the Soviet Union. After years of tensions between various military men, Hafez al-Assad emerged as strongman in 1970. This brings us to the modern era and the Syria we grew up with.
The Assads are Alawites, a 12% minority of the Syrian population. They have ruled with an iron fist and made Syria a pseudo-communist dictatorship. They attacked Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. They plunged the Syrian army into a 30 year occupation of Lebanon in 1976. When their patron state, the Soviet Union, disbanded in 1991, they allied themselves with Islamic Republic of Iran. So, basically, they have been a thorn in our side for almost 60 years vis-a-vis our interests in the region.
So, here we are. In March 2011, the Hafez's son Bashar's government - the latter took over for the former when the former died in 2000 - made a disproportionately brutal response to peaceful protests by pro-democracy activists. Both sides have dug in. Still sore by the invasion and subsequent occpuation of Iraq 10 years ago, the Obama administration has been loathe to get too involved because the American people do not have the appetite for any more military adventures.
Not only that, but the short-sighted mistakes of Misters Sykes and Picot almost 100 years ago haunt us still today. Syria is a patchwork of ethnicities who, at best, distrust each other and, at worst, want to kill each other. The vacuum created by both sides' entrenchment has been filled by elements that are hostile to not only American, but Western interests. That has made the President even less inclined to jump in on the side of the rebels.
That said, the President has always said the "red line" is the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against the rebels. If Assad crosses that red line, then...well, we don't know. As of today, according to Obama's own Secretary of State, John Kerry, Assad's military has used chemical weapons against innocent civilians in a rebel-held neighborhood of the capital Damascus. But, our President, in typical fashion, is being ambiguous. Can we blame him, though?
Americans overwhelmingly feel that any action against Assad should be approved by the Congress. A Congress that is pretty widely detested.
So, what now? I have been saying for days that the bombing should start any minute. And I wouldn't be surprised if it does. Or if it doesn't. Since the British Parliament denied their Prime Minister the vote to take action, all we have with us is France, a country that isn't very good at hiding the fact that it's foreign policy is all about its self-interest.
Meanwhile, another chemical attack occurred today. Perhaps Assad is trying to call our bluff. But, even if it's Obama, I wouldn't try to call an American president's bluff.
