Obama must act with great care

US President Barack Obama has found himself in an awkward corner. Here is a president who is trying to remove his country from two wars - Iraq and Afghanistan.  

At the same time, he is asking the Congress to approve a limited military intervention in Syria on the ground that the al-Assad regime has crossed a red line by using chemical weapons in its civil war.  

The US and its allies, namely the UK and Turkey, have done a fair job in convincing the international community that the chemical attack was carried out by Bashir’s troops that killed about 1,400 people last month.

But with simultaneous wars going on, and the promise of an end to them soon, it is not a big surprise that American people are seeking a clearer answer as to what Obama means when he says “limited” military action.

Beside the sceptical American people, internationally, Obama is also up against a lot. At the G-20 summit this week, Assad’s main backer, Russian President Vladimir Putin, made sure he wasn’t going to give into Obama. Call it home turf indignation or what you like, Putin spoke of the need for a political settlement in Syria while at the same time sending a Russian warship to the Mediterranean to give Assad a big boost.  

What was disgraceful about the G-20 meeting was the fact world leaders couldn’t even agree on a statement to condemn Assad’s use of chemical weapons. 

If Obama can’t even get that, there seems little prospect of a blessing from the UN Security Council for military action against Syria for violating important international treaties. 

For the American public, there is concern that the US military will, again, become mired in another costly war. The fact that there are talks of broadening military targets to go beyond deterring Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons does not help the situation.  

There is no plan to strike the chemical stockpile itself, as that could create even more problems. But there have been reports that the expanded targets include the headquarters and the launch sites of artillery and long-range missiles designed to deliver the chemical weapons, as well as air defences.  

In the final analysis, the US has to think long and hard about employing military options for Syria. Can America contain the temptation to not to get too deeply involved in Syrian affairs?

The US needs only to look at Afghanistan. Just over a decade ago, American troops went in there to remove the Taleban and its al-Qaeda allies. But instead of pulling out, it stayed and tried to do nation-state building on a country with a long history of tribal warfare and traditional governance.  

It went for broke, spent billions and in the end, realised that it’s best to talk to its enemies.  

While Syria is no tribal society, the conflict could, nevertheless, draw the US into a war that may be hard to get out of. Considering the Russian and Iranian factors, Syria could very well be a battle-ground for such major international players for a very long, long time.