In the movie Casablanca, produced in the colonial times of the 1940’s, film lovers will remember actress Ingrid Bergman telling Rick’s (Humphrey Bogart) pianist: “Play it again, Sam …”

Seventy years later, the words seem similar, but the tune is not. (Uncle) Sam seems determined to ‘play it again’, alone or not. The Iraqi experience has been worth nothing. The attack on Libya proved that the hard part comes after the first shot is fired. Nonetheless, the pro-war lobby does not care in the case of Syria since “the international law on chemical arms was violated and the credibility of the US foreign policy is at stake”, as one official said in Washington.

The argument is pathetic for two reasons. First, one marvels at the arrogance of American diplomacy to dare justify a military strike on the basis of a ‘moral obligation’. Isn’t it obscene, indeed, to mention ‘morality’ when no statistics as to the number of casualties in the Iraqi war were ever made public? Isn’t it even more obscene to hear Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu claiming that “crimes against humanity” were committed by the Syrian regime, while refusing to acknowledge the genocide committed in the 1920’s against the Armenian people?

Second, we are very sorry that the “credibility of US foreign policy is at stake”, but the entire responsibility for it falls on President Barack Obama himself. Mentioning “red lines” is a hazardous exercise when there is no alternative policy. Even assuming that the Bashar Al Assad regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons, an air strike will hardly change the situation on the ground. It will lead to additional killing and open a Pandora’s box. As to the horrible aspect of the crime, is it that different from the wiping out of Shiite tribes in Iraq in 1921 and the napalm carpet bombing on civilians in Vietnam? War horrors remain horrors, but some smart guys such as French polemist Bernard-Henri Levy go further. He wrote on August 28 in the Italian daily Corriere Della Sera: “The point indeed is to protect the Syrian people through the launching of bombs …”

Everyone knows through experience where this kind of rhetoric leads. Let’s look at three issues. US Secretary of State John Kerry has said: “The planned air strike is not aimed at changing the Syrian regime.” If so, what is it for? What is the use of a war which has no objective, no political vision, no strategy for the ‘day after’ and very few allies in sight? Kerry also said “it is going to be very short”. Of course. As short as the Korean or Afghan wars? Is the Libyan situation a reference point?

Any strike will obviously open the door to retaliation. It does not take a soothsayer to guess that it will take place at a time and place that nobody expects. Israel may be a target, but more immediately, Lebanon, other countries in the region and Europe will be hit in many different forms, especially if masterminded by recognised experts. As to the discussions with Iran about its nuclear programme, let’s forget about it.

Last, one should not forget that extremists fighting in Syria have other priorities. Their main objective will not be achieved if and when the Syrian regime is overthrown. Sooner or later, they will be back home and will then thank Obama and his friends for their valuable help.

For the time-being, the British parliament’s snub to Prime Minister David Cameron and Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval for a strike has put everything on hold. It is good to see that the UK is still a democracy. A report by UN inspectors is expected very shortly, even though one already knows the American and Russian readings of the situation will never match.

As for the French, who tactfully closed their embassy in Damascus in March 2012, it should not take long before President Francois Hollande realises that Syria is not Mali, and that the French people’s support is not there. Of course, French diplomacy could have helped take other roads, such as the one leading to Geneva. Yet, as Levy said, “Why not indeed a conference once Bashar has left?”. But everyone knows negotiations are effective when the same interlocutor sits on both sides of the table.

The first conclusion, thus is that whenever it comes, the American decision will be a failure. Doesn’t all this lead us back 10 years when George W. Bush was able to declare after the blitz on Iraq: “Who can deny that we now live in a safer world…?”

Maybe the West should remind itself of the old Roman saying, “When you doubt, abstain!”

 

Luc Debieuvre is a French essayist and a lecturer at IRIS (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques) and the FACO Law University of Paris.