The Syrian Bear Trap Part 2.

“He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge, by his deceptions and by his cruelties….”

You might be thinking that this is an excerpt from an Obama press conference citing the reasons for a strike against Bashar al Assad’s Syria. Yet, these words were spoken by George W Bush at the United Nations on 13 September 2002, and the above quote ends with…,

“Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.”

Some things never change.
With the UN weapons inspectors pulling out of Syria with the “possible” evidence of chemical attacks, it seems that the US is hell bent on attacking Syria and “punishing the country for using chemical weapons”. It must be noted that the weapons inspectors would only have evidence concerning the occurrence of chemical attack and not who did it. This leaves the field open for the US to assert its “moral authority” to attack Syria based on its own “reliable” intelligence. The possible US attack on Syria would again throw the region into geopolitical turmoil the likes of which can only be matched by the Iraq invasion disaster.
But the US is not alone. France –fresh and confident from its adventures in Mali and Libya- is ready to assist the US in “punishing” Syria for using chemical weapons. The UK’s parliament has thankfully voted against any intervention.
The American public, in a latest poll, has voted against any intervention in Syria. 53% say that they are against US military intervention in Syria, though it must be acknowledged that the numbers were higher in the previous week (60%).  Even the officers in the US military have doubts regarding the wisdom of attacking Syria when they are already coping with the economic and military battering that the US has received from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian and Hezbollah threat is always present. Thus, the case against any intervention in Syria is strong.
So why is the American administration hell-bent on engaging in another military adventure which nearly everyone thinks will probably end like another Afghanistan?
The answer can be sought in the preparations that the jihadis in Syria are making for the coming American strike. Many jihadist organisations are shifting bases, evacuating headquarters, moving equipment and even finding safe hiding places in the mountainous terrains. They think that the coming US attack would also be aimed at jihadist organisations that control vast swathes of land in the northern and eastern provinces of Syria. In a statement, the jihadi outfit Fatehul Islam has said that,

“For every US missile that hits a regime target, another will strike a jihadi base.”

The bread and butter of any standard jihadi outfit depends on how well it fights and speaks against US hegemony. This might be a heaven sent opportunity for the jihadis to entangle the US in another war.
It must be asked that who will benefit if the US destroys President Assad’s military strike capability.
The only winner in that case would be Jabahat-al-Nusra and other jihadi outfits who have travelled all across the world to take part in the war. Indeed, it is now becoming increasingly evident that if President Assad falls and when the Syrian civil war is over and done with, Jabahat al Nusra would eventually fall out with Free Syria Army (FSA) (endorsed by the US and NATO and is the official rebel army in Syria) and with seasoned fighters coming from Iraq and other neighbouring battlefields, it would eventually succeed in stopping the FSA from gaining further power and quite possibly open the way for bringing the Syrian war into Iraq against the Shiite government over there, led by Nouri Al Maliki. The Syrian war would spill all over the middle-east and the chemical weapons that Assad allegedly possesses might fall into very wrong hands.
This might be reason as to why the US wants to have a presence in Syria; to stop the jihadists from gaining any further control and chemical attacks were only an excuse. Other than that, we only have the “USA has a moral duty” explanations, and no one in the post-World War II history has ever bought that.
The US might find itself caught in a bear trap that it laid for the Soviets.

This blog of mine was  published on Express Tribune on August 31, 2013. http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/18694/the-us-war-on-afghanistan-is-over-syria-is-the-new-project/

Pharaoh Mursi?

This week Egypt’s President Mohammed Morsi  stupefied Egyptian public and Islamists around the world with his new decree which  grants him sweeping powers that practically make him immune to judicial decisions and gives him near absolute power in constitutional matters.

Pharaoh Mursi??

At the time of writing Egypt is roiling with mass pro democracy protests that are spreading with the passing of each day. On 27 November 2012, almost 100,000 protesters flocked to Egypt’s iconic Tahrir Square to protest against Morsi’s new decree, which they call as a power grab and led the Nobel Laureate Opposition leader, Al Baradei to pronounce Morsi as Egypt’s New Pharaoh. 

The decree gives President Morsi the power to proclaim any new law without any hindrance and no challenge could be made to his decisions, not even in the Supreme Court. He also actively banned the judiciary from dissolving the Shura Council (i.e. the Upper House of the Parliament). This has been viewed as a defensive strategy by Morsi to protect the Shura Council from any judicial decisions, seeing that the Supreme Court already dissolved the lower house of Parliament on the premise, that the elections were held on rules that were in contrast to the country’s constitution. That decision pitched Morsi against the Judiciary that has remain unchanged since Mubarak’s reign ended in 2011.

Morsi’s new decree also immunizes his decisions on “National Sovereignty” from any judicial review until a new assembly is elected early next year. Now what those issues of national sovereignty are, no one from the Morsi camp has been able to satisfactorily explain it to the world at large. Most probably, the issues of national sovereignty pertain to his decisions on foreign and domestic affairs like imposition of martial law, severing diplomatic ties with nations and dismissing the cabinet.  

Egypt unsurprisingly has risen up in protest

He also gives himself the power to tackle any challenges by issuing uncontested decisions to protect any state institutions from performing their functions. This has been interpreted to mean that the President has given himself extensive standby emergency powers, should such a situation arise.

Needless to say, this new decree has raised more than just eyebrows. Egypt is up in protest, and this protest seems to have united the hitherto divided and diffused opposition.  Although it is the common Egyptian on the street protesting against the decree because he sees it as a return to Mubarak era and the judiciary, who see it as a blow to their authority,  it is very  interesting to note that the protest camp has also seen former military men join the Anti-Morsi demonstrations.

In an interesting article in the Washington Post , it has been reported that the mass protests are also being used by Anti-Muslim Brotherhood elements, notably the liberals, secularists and Mubarak era military officers, to topple Mursi’s Islamist regime. It is important to bear in mind that Mursi faces opposition from the Coptic Church and secularists who claim that the Brotherhood dominated panel does not reflect the pluralistic identity of Egypt .

Despite the allegations by the liberals and the church leaders that Morsi is trying to pave the way for Salafists to come into power, it is worth noting that Morsi has proved to be so far not the demon that the western analysts predicted. In fact, his relations with USA have improved since he brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Gaza much to the consternation of Islamist and Jewish right-wingers.  It remains to be seen how big a role USA plays in this ongoing drama seeing that ice between the Morsi led government and USA has just started to melt. The White House, given its apparent cold-shouldering of the Islamist regime, has stopped short of denouncing the decree and called for a peaceful solution of the issue.

From the view point of Morsi, we must remember that from day one, he has been on a quest against ousting Mubarak era officials from any positions of power. So far he has been generally successful since he has effectively sidelined the military officials from interfering in important political decisions and also removed the Mubarak era prosecutor general Abdel Maguid Mehmoud, who had infuriated Egyptian revolutionaries , by playing an important role in the acquittal of Mubarak era official who allegedly were involved in violent crackdowns against Anti-Mubarak protesters.

This whole play, it seems, is heading towards the-soon-to-be-introduced constitution, which many fear, would impose stricter Islamist oriented laws in the country, which the Mubarak era elements, liberals, pro-USA parties, church leaders and secularists are opposing in principle. How will the new constitution shape Egypt and its role in the middle east, we will have to wait and see, as the success of the Arab spring  depends on how Morsi lets democracy flourish in post Mubarak Egypt.