Attacco alla Siria: più domande che risposte . La maggioranza degli Americani contro l' intervento militare

 

 

 

 

 

Sintesi personale  Carri armati dell'esercito siriano dispiegati nel quartiere Jobar di Damasco il 24 agosto 2013. Foto di AFP   Da Reuters | 25 agosto 2013 | 08:52

 

 La paura di perdere in Siria  è  il  dilemma  degli Stati Uniti e dell'Europa .I paesi stanno ancora parlando ,nonostante i  preparativi per un'azione militare come  le navi da guerra armate  di missili vicino  al confine siriano, le consultazioni urgenti alla Casa Bianca , il coordinamento  tra  i paesi europei. Non perchè  manca il bersaglio ,infatti,   la posizione dei siti di armi chimiche dell'esercito siriano sono note. La preoccupazione è più diplomatica.    Diverse sono le versioni sull'uso delle armi chimiche:
1  l' Esercito libero siriano e  l' opposizione politica affermano  che i missili chimici sono stati sparati dalla Brigata dell'esercito siriano 115 dalla base missilistica di  Kalamun  alla presenza di Taher Hamed Khalil, capo del  the Syrian missile directorate 

2  Un'altra versione è quella del quotidiano saudita Al-Sharq che , basandosi su una fonte dell'  Free Syrian Army  sostiene che i soldati della quarta unità d'elite, comandata da Maher Assad - fratello del presidente siriano , hanno fatto irruzione nei laboratori   scientifici e di ricerca e  si sono impossessati  di una notevole   quantità di  armi chimiche dopo aver ucciso un ufficiale siriano che aveva rifiutato di farli entrare 

3 il  quotidiano kuwaitiano Al-Seyassah, attraverso una fonte irachena vicino al separatista Muktada al-Sadr, afferma  che i combattenti delle Guardie Rivoluzionarie iraniane, responsabile di alcuni dei depositi di armi chimiche, abbiano  sparato  a   al-Ghouta, nonostante l'opposizione  dell'esercito siriano

.4 Un 'altra versione, pubblicata sul sito web dell'opposizione siriana al-Hakika, ha riferito che le sostanze chimiche sono state contrabbandate dalla Turchia da attivisti del  Turkmen che hanno sparato i missili per scatenare una reazione  internazionale.Il sito, che ha pubblicato relazioni sul contrabbando dei prodotti chimici, circa una settimana prima dell'attacco , solleva questioni circa il modo in cui i morti sono stati trovati, oltre al fatto che le condizioni meteorologiche nel giorno dell'attacco non garantivano l'incolumità ai soldati siriani . 

5  Il regime siriano ha la sua versione  e denuncia che  cinque soldati siriani sono stati uccisi e altri ricoverati  in ospedale dopo aver inalato prodotti chimici.

Sicuramente    le armi chimiche, la cui composizione non è ancora nota  con certezza, sono state effettivamente utilizzate . Anche il presidente iraniano Hassan Rohani ha dichiarato che  cittadini siriani sono stati uccisi da armi chimiche senza, ovviamente, affermare di chi è la responsabilità .L'ostruzionismo in Occidente deriva da una mancanza di prove chiare su chi ha utilizzato  le armi chimiche . Gli Stati Uniti vogliono trovare la pistola fumante nel palazzo del presidente Bashar Assad così l'attacco alla Siria non sarà limitato ai depositi chimici,ma determinerà  un cambiamento strategico in Siria.Nessuno può garantire  che quantitativi di armi chimiche non siano già stati distribuiti tra le unità dell'esercito siriano  o a  gruppi  di  ribelli che non si identificano  con   l'esercito siriano libero - come ad esempio i gruppi islamici affiliati con Al-Qaeda.Uno scenario preoccupante è che, dopo il bombardamento aereo dei depositi , si  continui ad utilizzare armi chimiche  e   non ci sarebbe, quindi,  più un obiettivo chiaramente identificabile per l'ulteriori interventi militari   .  Il timore immediato è di una reazione russa e iraniana.Anche  se  i russi  condannassero con dure parole  l'attacco  e non inviassero  truppe per difendere il regime siriano né schierassero   navi da guerra  vicino al porto siriano di Tartus (il sito di un impianto navale russa), rimarrebbe  in sospeso la domanda su cosa accadrebbe  "il giorno dopo".Chi esattamente raccoglierebbe  i frutti del l'attacco? Chi prenderebbe  le redini del governo in Siria dopo la  caduta di Assad? Nessuno conosce la risposta né gli Stati Uniti, nè Israele,  nè  l'Europa e neppure la  Siria stessa.Il presidente degli Stati Uniti Barack Obama potrebbe  attaccare alcuni obiettivi in ​​Siria, mostrando la sua insistenza sulla "linea rossa". Questa , naturalmente, è una considerazione importante per un presidente la cui popolarità continua a scivolare. Ma quando una superpotenza colpisce  un altro paese o abbatte  un regime, il pretesto e il risultato dovrebbero avere  dimensioni da superpotenza Le armi chimiche hanno ucciso più di 1.200 persone e le armi convenzionali hanno ucciso più di 100.000. Questa è una ragione sufficiente per far cadere il regime.

 Analysis || More questions than answers as attack on Syria looms

Who will take the reins of government if a strike leads to Assad's downfall? No one knows the answer to that - neither the United States, Israel, Europe nor even within Syria.

By Zvi Bar'el | Aug. 25, 2013 | 4:48 AM 

By Reuters | Aug. 25, 2013 | 8:52 AM
“When you have to shoot, shoot. Don’t talk,” says Eli Wallach’s character in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” But he also says, “If you miss, you had better miss very well.” It seems that the fear of missing is the dilemma now facing the United States and Europe over Syria.
The countries are still talking. Even the signs of preparations for military action, bringing warships armed with missiles nearer to the Syrian border, urgent consultations at the White House and coordination of positions with European countries, do not take the safety catch off just yet. That’s because it’s not tactically missing the target that is the concern, since the location of the Syrian army’s chemical weapons sites are known. The concern is over diplomatically missing it.
The decision makers have before them a few versions, each pointing a finger in different directions following last week’s reported use of chemical weapons east of Damascus.
One version is that of the Free Syrian Army and the political opposition, whose spokesmen explaine at a news conference Saturday that the chemical missiles were fired by the Syrian army’s Brigade 115 from its Mount Kalamun missile base and that, during the attack, the head of the Syrian missile directorate, Taher Hamed Khalil, was present at the base.
Another version is that of Saudi newspaper Al-Sharq, relying on a source in the Free Syrian Army who claims that soldiers of the Fourth Elite Unit, commanded by Maher Assad - the Syrian president’s brother - raided the Scientific Studies and Research Center and captured quantities of the chemical weapons after killing a Syrian officer who refused to let them in.
A third version comes from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Seyassah, through an Iraqi source close to the separatist Muktada al-Sadr, who says that fighters from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, in charge of some of the chemical weapons stores, fired the chemical weapons at the town of al-Ghouta, despite opposition by the Syrian army brass.
Yet another version, published on the Syrian opposition website al-Hakika, reported that the chemicals were smuggled from Turkey by activists of the Turkmen uprising and that these activists were the ones who fired the missiles to spark an international provocation.
The website, which published reports on the smuggling of the chemicals about a week before the attack - as well as after it - raises questions about the way the dead were found, plus the fact that the weather conditions on the day of the attack could not ensure that Syrian soldiers would not also be killed.
The Syrian regime has its own version, in which five Syrian soldiers were killed and others rushed to the hospital after they were injured by the chemicals.
In this abundance of versions, it seems that, at least in one matter, the fog has been lifted.
Chemical weapons, whose makeup is still not known for sure, were indeed used. Even Iranian President Hassan Rohani said on Saturday that Syrian citizens had been killed by chemical weapons - without, of course, saying who fired them.
The foot-dragging in the West stems from a lack of clear-cut proof about who fired the weapons. The United States wants to find the smoking gun in President Bashar Assad’s palace so the attack on Syria will not be restricted to aiming cruise missiles at some weapons stores, but rather, will lead to a strategic change that will decide the battle in Syria.
In contrast, the destruction of those stores is no assurance that quantities of chemical weapons have not already been distributed among Syrian army units, or have not made their way to rebel groups that do not answer to the Free Syrian Army - such as Islamic groups affiliated with Al-Qaida.
One worrisome scenario is that after the aerial bombardment of the chemical weapons depots, such weapons will continue to be used, but then there will no longer be a clearly responsible target to be attacked.
Beyond tactical considerations, such an attack could cross the strategic boundary that has so far prevented military involvement in Syria. The immediate fear is of a Russian and Iranian response. But even if we assume that the Russians will make do with sharp condemnations and won’t send troops to defend the Syrian regime nor bring its warships closer to the Syrian port of Tartus (the site of a Russian naval facility), the question will still remain of what happens “the day after.”
Who exactly will reap the fruits of the attack? Who will take the reins of government in Syria if the strike leads to Assad’s downfall? No one knows the answer to that - neither the United States, Israel or Europe, nor even within Syria itself.
U.S. President Barack Obama can do himself a political favor and attack a few targets in Syria, showing his insistence on the “red line” he defined a year ago. That, of course, is an important consideration for a president whose popularity continues to slip. But when a superpower is made to strike another country or bring down a regime, the pretext and the outcome should be superpower-sized.
Chemical weapons have killed more than 1,200 people, and conventional weapons have killed more than 100,000. That is a good enough reason to bring down the regime. 

2   Poll || Most Americans oppose intervention in Syria even if chemical attack confirmed

About 60 percent of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll said United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

Americans  strongly oppose U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war and believe Washington should stay out of the conflict even if reports that Syria's government used deadly chemicals to attack civilians are confirmed, a Reuters/Ipsos poll says.

About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.
More Americans would back intervention if it is established that chemical weapons have been used, but even that support has dipped in recent days - just as Syria's civil war has escalated and the images of hundreds of civilians allegedly killed by chemicals appeared on television screens and the Internet.
The Reuters/Ipsos poll, taken August 19-23, found that 25 percent of Americans would support U.S. intervention if Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces used chemicals to attack civilians, while 46 percent would oppose it. That represented a decline in backing for U.S. action since August 13, when Reuters/Ipsos tracking polls found that 30.2 percent of Americans supported intervention in Syria if chemicals had been used, while 41.6 percent did not.
Taken together, the polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans' resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
The results - and Reuters/Ipsos polling on the use-of-chemicals question since early June - suggest that if Obama decides to undertake military action against Assad's regime, he will do so in the face of steady opposition from an American public wary after more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Some foreign and U.S. officials - notably Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated for the presidency in 2008 - have called Obama too hesitant in deciding whether to act in Syria. But several Americans surveyed in this week's poll, including Charles Kohls, 68, a former U.S. military officer from Maryland, praised Obama's caution.
"The United States has become too much of the world's policeman and we have become involved in too many places that should be a United Nations realm, not ours," Kohls said in an interview. "I don't think we ought to" intervene in Syria.
Kohls said the possibility of a chemical attack did not alter his belief that the United States should stay out of Syria, or any war for that matter.
Obama's administration has come under increasing pressure from various governments, including those in France and Israel, to respond more forcefully to what many have called an unfolding humanitarian and political crisis.
However, Obama does not appear to be feeling much pressure over Syria from the American people.
In this week's Reuters/Ipsos survey of 1,448 people, just 27 percent said they supported his decision to send arms to some Syrian rebels; 47 percent were opposed. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.9 percentage points for each number.
About 11 percent said Obama should do more to intervene in Syria than sending arms to the rebels, while 89 percent said he should not help the rebels.
Obama is considering a range of options. The most popular option among Americans: not intervening in Syria at all. That option is backed by 37 percent of Americans, according to the poll.
Less popular options include air strikes to help the rebels (supported by 12 percent of Americans); imposing a "no-fly" zone over Syria that would ground Assad's air force (11 percent); funding a multi-national invasion of Syria (9 percent), and invading Syria with U.S. troops (4 percent).
Deborah Powell, 58, of California, said she initially opposed any involvement by the United States but now supports arming the rebels.
"I was against any involvement after watching a (television) program that said if we give (rebels) the weapons they could turn them against us, but I think now we need to give them the weapons," Powell said.
Asked what changed her mind, she said: "What's going on over there is terrible." However, Powell praised Obama's wariness toward getting the United States involved in another war.
Some Americans believe the use of chemical weapons has changed the game in Syria, and that the United States should get involved as long as other countries did, too.
Jonathan Adams, 56, of California, said that he was "happy that we didn't get involved from the start and I'm glad Obama was cautious. But I think we have gotten past the point of where we should've been involved in some way."
He said reports of chemical weapons use "went way past the line."