Xinhua News Agency
September 11, 2013
Commentary: Military strike against Syria, neither strategic nor tactic
BEIJING: On the eve of the 12th anniversary of 9/11 terrorism attacks against his country, U.S. President Barack Obama gave a rare prime time TV address to another round of pitching on Syria.
After staging two long-lasting and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2011, it could be never known whether the U.S. policymakers get wiser on anti-terror war or potential threats of Syria’s chemical weapons falling into the hands of extremists.
Obama has threatened to resort to military action against Syria based on the allegation that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.
However, more Americans and the world community have come to know that military strikes from a flip-flopper posed to stand for “hope and change” may work expediently in presidential campaigns, but it is coordinated international diplomatic efforts that benefits the stability of Middle East in the long run.
Obama’s remarks that “America is not the world’s policeman” are reflected in the two-year conflict in Syria, the bloodshedding protests in Egypt and the Benghazi tragedy, in which four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, lost their lives on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 attacks. These actually proved that Washington has not much to play as the world’s policeman.
The Obama administration also ought to realize that it was not its military threat that made the Syrian government willing to turn over its chemical weapons arsenal.
It is the diplomatic efforts made by countries like Russia and China, and more importantly, the consequences of a civil war and possible terrorists attacks that lead to the breakthrough.
No one knows better than Obama himself about the situation of his country in its anti-terror war and the conflicts in the Middle East.
As the history of the U.S. targeted strikes had been marred by errors, notably civilian casualties, little support on his Syrian plan inside and outside the country testifies to the cracking of the reputation and credibility of the United States.
The image of “anchor of global security” may be further tarnished by fallouts of military bills, slope to another war, retaliation of extremists and partisan bickering, which all were pointed out in the president’s speech Tuesday night.
The rhetorical description and narration of dying kids are quite forceful, but coordinated diplomatic efforts are more strategic.
Also, as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, the U.S. president cannot be clearer that Americans and the international community won’t buy his plan of striking Syria without convincing evidence.
Source