Matthew Fisher does some speculating in this piece from today's Ottawa Citizen. His assumptions are plausible, while his conclusions are perhaps less likely, but still possible. The piece is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.
With chemical weapons used in Syria, we could be part of military intervention
By Matthew Fisher, The Associated Press
April 30, 2013 5:07 AM
Will Canada be going to war any time soon against Syria?
That is unlikely in the near future. But not impossible after that.
The question has taken on fresh meaning recently because of word - first from Europe, then from Israel and finally from Washington - that Bashar Assad's regime may have used sarin gas against his own people.
Until now, there have been no telltale drumbeats from the White House suggesting that it will act, even if Assad sanctioned the use of chemical agents. This is unlike the drum crescendo before the Gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 and the U.S.-led war against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. To great fanfare, warships, fighters jets and bombers and ground forces were deployed to the Middle East and to the Balkans. As forces massed in nearby waters and neighbouring countries, western politicians and generals issued threats against Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic that made it sound as if war was inevitable.
A quicker version of this well-rehearsed theatre happened before NATO went to war against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi two years ago.
With 70,000 dead already and several million internal and external refugees, the situation in Syria today is dire. This makes Assad as compelling a bogeyman as Hussein and Milosevic. Still, there has been almost no noise yet to suggest that a foreign military campaign to overthrow this tyrant is imminent or inevitable, although U.S. President Barack Obama hinted as much last summer when he said that if Syria used chemical weapons, that would cross "a red line."
There are many different factors at play now than before the conflicts in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan. First and foremost, after the high cost in blood and treasure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has become so tired of foreign military adventures that even red-meat Republican senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham are adamant that no American ground forces should be sent to Syria. What the senators favour is the imposition of a no-fly zone and the unleashing of a torrent of cruise missiles on Assad's airbases.
Another reason for western reluctance to get involved is that while Syria's air defences are not invincible, they are far superior to those that Saddam and Gaddafi had.
With Moscow and Beijing strongly opposed to any intervention and Islamic hardliners poised to seize power if Washington and the West tilt the civil war against Assad, the White House is left with a lot to ponder before deciding what to do. Nevertheless, after a lot of fighting and dying inside Syria, and with the use of chemical weapons now a strong possibility, a consensus appears to slowly be emerging that at some point in the next few months or year Obama will likely order a no-fly zone and, perhaps, some targeted airstrikes. To sell this to the American people and to the world, Washington will once again call on Ottawa and a few other western capitals to ask for their support.
The post-Cold War world has proven to be far more complicated militarily for Canada than at any time since the Korean War. Canada has already put its hand up for the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya, with modest leadership roles in the last two of these conflicts. Yet despite that recent history, Canadian politicians and commentators have almost tuned out any discussion of the possibility that Ottawa might go to war in Syria.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said last summer that Canada would not be part of any potential military action against Syria. But given the Harper government's tough talk on the Damascus file, its heavy involvement in NATO's Libyan war and its ties to Israel, which is jumpy about what is happening on its northern border, if Syria's use of chemical weapons is the catalyst that finally pushes the U.S. and NATO to become involved in a limited way, Canadian participation is highly likely.
It is a certainty that Lt.-Gen. Stu Beare's Canadian Joint Operations Command has already prepared contingency plans for the government to consider. It is a safe bet that the options include sending Hercules C-130J or C-17 transports to provide logistical support to assist Syrian refugees, re-tasking a Canadian frigate already operating in the Arabian Sea to be part of a maritime blockade of Syria's 120-kilometre long Mediterranean coastline and once again dispatching a dozen or so of Canada's CF-18 Hornets.
If Canada does become involved, something to watch for is whether its most experienced Afghan warrior, Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance - soon to be promoted to lieutenant-general, is given a leading role by NATO.
Vance is to become the deputy commander, Allied Joint Force Command, Naples, in two months. That is exactly the position from which Canada's Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard was named to lead NATO's military intervention in Libya.
A former Israeli defence minister alleged Monday that Syria's chemical weapons are "trickling" to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. It was the first such claim by a senior politician in Israel, but he did not supply evidence to support his assertion.
Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a retired general who is now a lawmaker from the opposition Labor Party, told The Associated Press: "The process of weapon transferral to Hezbollah has begun."
He told Israel Radio that he "has no doubt" that Syrian President Bashar Assad has already used chemical weapons and that "these weapons are trickling to Hezbollah."
His statement on chemical weapons reaching Hezbollah did not represent an official assessment. Defence officials said that while Israeli officials are deeply concerned about such weapons reaching Hezbollah, they have not seen evidence that this has occurred.
Israel has repeatedly expressed concern that Syria's chemical arsenal could fall into the hands of anti-Israel militants like Hezbollah, an Assad ally, or an al-Qaida-linked group fighting with the rebels. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that militants' acquisition of chemical arms or other sophisticated weapons could trigger military action.
Israel is widely believed to have carried out an air strike in Syria early this year on a shipment of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/With+chemical+weapons+used+Syria+could+part+military+intervention/8314174/story.html#ixzz2Rx3HFy5n
With chemical weapons used in Syria, we could be part of military intervention
By Matthew Fisher, The Associated Press
April 30, 2013 5:07 AM
Will Canada be going to war any time soon against Syria?
That is unlikely in the near future. But not impossible after that.
The question has taken on fresh meaning recently because of word - first from Europe, then from Israel and finally from Washington - that Bashar Assad's regime may have used sarin gas against his own people.
Until now, there have been no telltale drumbeats from the White House suggesting that it will act, even if Assad sanctioned the use of chemical agents. This is unlike the drum crescendo before the Gulf wars in 1991 and 2003 and the U.S.-led war against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. To great fanfare, warships, fighters jets and bombers and ground forces were deployed to the Middle East and to the Balkans. As forces massed in nearby waters and neighbouring countries, western politicians and generals issued threats against Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic that made it sound as if war was inevitable.
A quicker version of this well-rehearsed theatre happened before NATO went to war against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi two years ago.
With 70,000 dead already and several million internal and external refugees, the situation in Syria today is dire. This makes Assad as compelling a bogeyman as Hussein and Milosevic. Still, there has been almost no noise yet to suggest that a foreign military campaign to overthrow this tyrant is imminent or inevitable, although U.S. President Barack Obama hinted as much last summer when he said that if Syria used chemical weapons, that would cross "a red line."
There are many different factors at play now than before the conflicts in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan. First and foremost, after the high cost in blood and treasure of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. has become so tired of foreign military adventures that even red-meat Republican senators such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham are adamant that no American ground forces should be sent to Syria. What the senators favour is the imposition of a no-fly zone and the unleashing of a torrent of cruise missiles on Assad's airbases.
Another reason for western reluctance to get involved is that while Syria's air defences are not invincible, they are far superior to those that Saddam and Gaddafi had.
With Moscow and Beijing strongly opposed to any intervention and Islamic hardliners poised to seize power if Washington and the West tilt the civil war against Assad, the White House is left with a lot to ponder before deciding what to do. Nevertheless, after a lot of fighting and dying inside Syria, and with the use of chemical weapons now a strong possibility, a consensus appears to slowly be emerging that at some point in the next few months or year Obama will likely order a no-fly zone and, perhaps, some targeted airstrikes. To sell this to the American people and to the world, Washington will once again call on Ottawa and a few other western capitals to ask for their support.
The post-Cold War world has proven to be far more complicated militarily for Canada than at any time since the Korean War. Canada has already put its hand up for the first Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya, with modest leadership roles in the last two of these conflicts. Yet despite that recent history, Canadian politicians and commentators have almost tuned out any discussion of the possibility that Ottawa might go to war in Syria.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said last summer that Canada would not be part of any potential military action against Syria. But given the Harper government's tough talk on the Damascus file, its heavy involvement in NATO's Libyan war and its ties to Israel, which is jumpy about what is happening on its northern border, if Syria's use of chemical weapons is the catalyst that finally pushes the U.S. and NATO to become involved in a limited way, Canadian participation is highly likely.
It is a certainty that Lt.-Gen. Stu Beare's Canadian Joint Operations Command has already prepared contingency plans for the government to consider. It is a safe bet that the options include sending Hercules C-130J or C-17 transports to provide logistical support to assist Syrian refugees, re-tasking a Canadian frigate already operating in the Arabian Sea to be part of a maritime blockade of Syria's 120-kilometre long Mediterranean coastline and once again dispatching a dozen or so of Canada's CF-18 Hornets.
If Canada does become involved, something to watch for is whether its most experienced Afghan warrior, Maj.-Gen. Jon Vance - soon to be promoted to lieutenant-general, is given a leading role by NATO.
Vance is to become the deputy commander, Allied Joint Force Command, Naples, in two months. That is exactly the position from which Canada's Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard was named to lead NATO's military intervention in Libya.
A former Israeli defence minister alleged Monday that Syria's chemical weapons are "trickling" to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. It was the first such claim by a senior politician in Israel, but he did not supply evidence to support his assertion.
Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, a retired general who is now a lawmaker from the opposition Labor Party, told The Associated Press: "The process of weapon transferral to Hezbollah has begun."
He told Israel Radio that he "has no doubt" that Syrian President Bashar Assad has already used chemical weapons and that "these weapons are trickling to Hezbollah."
His statement on chemical weapons reaching Hezbollah did not represent an official assessment. Defence officials said that while Israeli officials are deeply concerned about such weapons reaching Hezbollah, they have not seen evidence that this has occurred.
Israel has repeatedly expressed concern that Syria's chemical arsenal could fall into the hands of anti-Israel militants like Hezbollah, an Assad ally, or an al-Qaida-linked group fighting with the rebels. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that militants' acquisition of chemical arms or other sophisticated weapons could trigger military action.
Israel is widely believed to have carried out an air strike in Syria early this year on a shipment of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/With+chemical+weapons+used+Syria+could+part+military+intervention/8314174/story.html#ixzz2Rx3HFy5n
