After his predecessor's misadventures in Asia, the bleeding soul of the USA had sincerely hoped that President Obama will script a new story through his 'Yes, we can' mantra and his decision to pull out the military forces from Afghanistan by the end of next year was seen as a historic step. Obama's winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 also made him look like a messiah in contemporary international politics.
But he didn't resist the temptation and what is worse, he tried to cover up the crucial decision after taking the first step. The mission to punish unfriendly tyrannical rulers across the globe is an utter double standard that Washington has followed over the years. Its current enemy is Syria, which it has accused of using chemical weapon against innocent civilians, including children.
Barack Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, didn't do better than war-monger Bush
Something similar was witnessed when George W Bush and his hawkish administration had engineered an attack against Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The excuse then was Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at his disposal but nothing was found in effect. The US defied international law to launch a massive attack against the Asian nation and left it in a mess, perhaps for eternity.
Syria is not Iraq
Will it create another mess in Syria now? The task won't be easy though. For President Bashar al-Assad has powerful international backing and won't be ready to give up even if he is in a minority in West Asia. The US had planned extreme steps against Syria in the past as well but could not ensure international backing since Russia and China vetoed. This time, too, the defeat of the UK to get a democratic approval to launch a strike against Syria has left the US lonely. France, however, has decided to back the US unlike in the past.
But the idea to launch unilateral military strike won't serve the American interest anymore. There is no evidence that Syria has posed any threat to the US and neither Assad's onslaught against his own people is something new in a region where democracy flourishes little. The theory of morality, hence, doesn't count. But what is difficult to understand that the Americans have not learnt the lesson from the past. They have seen how their own soldiers have been killed and their economy has been hit while undertaking meaningless war activities to export democracy.
Democracy can't be imported, it has to grow from within
Democracies can never be grown from the top and with foreign help and both Afghanistan and Iraq have proved that. Forceful removal of Assad will also see the same happening, or even worse, in Syria for there are too many conflicting interests at play in that unstable country. The US will soon find the situation going out of control if it tries to impose its own order in Syria. Nobody can really do anything drastic if a sovereign country treats its own people cruelly. We have seen that in Sri Lanka, China and many other places in the world and no foreign intervention has succeeded in curbing the atrocity. Bangladesh is one of the few rare exceptions.
But why is the US still tilting towards a military attack? Use of chemical weapons is not something new to the Americans. Saddam Hussein, while he was a trusted ally of the US, had used such weapons against Iran during the war of the 1980s. Even before that, the Americans did not spare Vietnam and had used deadly weapons against it. And above all, the twin disasters in two Japanese cities in 1945 will always remain a fresh memory.
Is Iran the real target?
Why Obama is suddenly feeling a moral urgency now? The reason is not difficult to understand. By threatening Syria, the US is actually targetting Iran, a country which it has failed to teach a lesson so far. Tehran has pursued its nuclear ambition throughout and has countered Israeli threats and to counter it, the US has found an opportunity to topple Assad, a close ally of Tehran, and set up a puppet government there to gain strategically.