By Idang Alibi
Could it be that it is the Nobel Peace prize that was peremptorily awarded to President Barak Obama to nudge him toward becoming a less war-mongering USA president that has helped to restrain Obama from fully committing America to the war in Syria on the side of the rebels? I am just wondering because it is quite clear that Obama is not anxious to dance to the drumbeats of war being beaten daily by those who stand to gain from America’s direct involvement in the Syrian war.
I just wonder because it is very unusual for an American president to be so self-restrained in entering into a war as Obama has been.
The man once said that if at any time there arises any evidence of the use of biological weapons in the Syrian war, that would be the red line. In the past few days, there have been reports of the use of biological weapons. Would-be profiteers of America’s involvement in the war have employed the media to drum it into Obama’s ears that the red line he had talked about has been crossed and what has he been waiting for. But the guy has not been anxious to bite the bait. His traducers have even been subtly mocking at him, hinting that he is a wimp and a man who is not true to his boast. It took less prompting for George Bush
1 and 2 to invade Iraq on some totally false pretence to despoil a once organised and proud civilisation.
Quite surprisingly, Obama has not been forthcoming in the direction war-loving Americans want him to go. You know Americans just love war provided it will be other people’s countries that will be destroyed and not theirs. That seems to be their heritage. The country was founded by war and extermination of others who were there before the coming of the Europeans and it seems that it will continually be sustained by war and threats of war.
What I find sadly amusing is that the media are now being used to say that investigation has proved that the use of chemical weapons in Syria is not by Assad forces but by the rebels. That tells me of the extreme reluctance of the Americans to enter into that war because they fear the implication of doing so. And that tells me that even America fears. If the USA wants to be involved, it would have employed propaganda to tell the world that it is the Syrian forces under the command of Assad that is guilty of the use of chemical weapons and by so doing it has crossed the proverbial red line. The American propaganda war factory would have by now produced some ‘captured Syrian forces’ who would have confessed that they are the ones who delivered the destructive biological armament to provide a justification for America’s entry. As I said earlier, earlier war-mongering USA presidents needed less justification to commit American troops to destroy other people and their lands in the interest of the American empire.
But this Obama is proving to be different. And as far as I can deduce, the self-restraint displayed by Obama is an illustration of his famed intelligence which has not been allowed to bloom because he mounted the saddle of a society that has been built by brute force and which is sustained by the use of brute force, quite often against  peoples and societies that want to live peacefully. It should not be forgotten that Obama came to power on the banner of helping to achieve a more peaceful world. Some of especially his initial words and gestures showed clearly that he wanted a less belligerent America.
But the reality of the type of country destiny propelled him to lead proved too much for his humane sensibility and he was compelled to lead the unfortunate effort to destroy Libya and enthrone anarchy in a society that was once at much peace with itself.
I think it is partly the guilt that Obama, with his sensitive soul, feels at the destruction of Libya that has informed his reluctance so far to help once again in the destruction of yet another country, another Middle Eastern country.
But by far the greater force at play is the implication of America’s involvement. If the USA moves in, the war will escalate.
Bashar Assad will probably fall but the consequences of his fall will be unpalatable for the entire world. Perhaps Syria will become the beginning of the Apocalypse. Even the Sunnis who are the spearhead of the sectarian war in Syria will not escape misfortune. What will happen will be no more than a pyrrhic victory. The cost will be higher than the profit. The Middle East and beyond will be engulfed by fire. Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon will join the fray on the side of Assad.
The Kurds in all of the Middle East will also get involved, again on the side of Assad. Iraq is now being governed by the Shiite majority. They will not be uninterested in what is going on in Syria.
Iran and Russia will also not be uninterested observers either. If the war escalates, as it will surely do, world trade will be gravely affected. We have not mentioned the fact that if Assad falls, Syria would fall into the hands of the dreaded Al Qaida. The USA, certainly, would not cherish such a prospect. And if the war is to conquer possible hostile forces to make Israel live in peace, the reverse may be the outcome because Hezbollah, that dreaded outfit which Israel fears the most, will have a good ground to engage Israel. Almost everybody will be a loser if the Syrian war is not brought to an immediate end. And how to do it is for everyone supporting the rebels to withdraw their support because the rebels do not stand a wee chance of defeating Assad militarily.
I wish that the USA and their other war-mongering cousins in Europe will always be confronted by these various balances of terror to dissuade them from casually invading and destroying whole civilisations in the name of democracy and freedom as they so often do. Each time I read of, or watch on TV, news of horrendous carnage in Iraq and Libya, I feel like cursing America and Europe for the harm they have done to millions of innocent people in those countries who just wish to have bread and butter in order to live and fulfil their destinies. I think that if you meet the ordinary peoples of Iraq and Libya and ask them that in the light of their present experience which option would they prefer: life under the benevolent dictatorship of Saddam and Gaddaffi or under the current ‘democratic’ system, many of them would prefer the former. It is only ambitious and power-hungry politicians who will vote for the present anarchy.
I also wish that the awful lessons learnt from the misadventure in Iraq and Libya should continue to sober reasonable American presidents and give them cause to tamper the ardour of Americans to go to war over every perceivable injury. The American government should also try to reign in powerful forces in the arms industry that are always stoking the fire of foreign wars so that they can have a market for their deadly cargos.
The world is tired of war. God has given every people enough for them to live a decent life. If only some people can discipline themselves and be less greedy, the desire to subdue others so as to exploit what God has given to them will not arise.