Several days of airstrikes on Syria will achieve little

A no-fly zone is politically the most cost effective way to convince Americans to intervene in Libya, retired US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski told RT, but won’t bring about change.

In fact, a US strike on Syria would expose the weakness of the Obama administration and failure to present alternative options, he said.

RT:Do you believe the US and its allies would go ahead and strike without UN Security Council approval?

Karen Kwiatkowski: I do think that they would do that. This is in Barack Obama’s view a credibility question and he wants to be seen as strong as a warfighter, which he is not. But what he did in Libya, more rapidly, he would do in Syria.

RT:Washington says if there's a military campaign, it would be just a few targeted strikes. How effective would that be - and could that make a real difference to the situation on the ground?

KK: It is very clear and we know this even long before Iraq- air power does not win wars and it rarely archives the objectives it wants to achieve, the politicians state they wish to achieve. Several days of airstrikes will do very little. It will demonstrate in many ways the weakness of the US political regime and the lack of options it has in really moving forward towards peace in the region.

RT:Some reports also suggest Washington is contemplating a no-fly zone over Syria - which is how the military intervention in Libya started. Is this developing into the same situation?

KK: It is part of the pattern in which the US seems to intervene in the Middle East and oil and gas corridors. The no-fly zones is something the United States can conduct relatively politically cheaply, because Americans don’t consider it to be war, much as we don’t consider economic embargoes to be acts of war. So they can get away with no-fly zones at home politically, which makes it a good choice for Washington. It sounds like something they would pursue.

RT:An Al-Qaeda-linked group promised a 'volcano of revenge' over the chemical attack in Syria. Is there a worry in the US that, if it does launch a military offensive, they'll be fighting alongside a terrorist organization?

KK: Absolutely. I do not understand it myself. We have allowed ourselves twice now. At least Barack Obama in Washington, DC. The Congress has done nothing to prevent us from being allied with the very terroristic enemies we talk about – the Al-Qaeda linked organizations, certainly in Libya. In fact, it is some of the same organizations Al-Qaeda groups in Libya that are assisting in fighting the Assad regime in Damascus. I do not know what it will take to explain to Barack Obama what he is getting into. The congress should put a stop to this. Acts of war are not permitted by the executive without Congressional consent. He is not seeking that consent from our Congress. He attempts to go forward, that what it looks like. I do not know.

RT:Iran has warned that any attack on Syria would cause 'regional chaos', while those for military action are convinced it'll be quick and only harm the Syrian regime. Which of the two do you think it would be?

KK: We have to remember that chaos is part of the objective here. Certainly it is part of the objective of the Israeli hawks who are beating the drums and have been beating the drums. In fact, they have attacked Syria three times in the past year, I believe, already. Chaos is the goal in many ways, certainly not the political goal. It is not what we tell the American people. But it is part of the goal. So that will be achieved.

If Iran throws its activity and energy into that chaos, in some ways you could say, the political leaders that are pushing for this unwarranted intervention, this act of war would be getting what they want. They would be getting chaos. They will be getting a confusing situation that certain parties would be able to take the advantage off. And this is all you can say what this is about.

Washington does not care about the Syrian people. It does not care about the rule of law. It does not care about international conventions. We ourselves supported Saddam Hussein when he used chemical weapons against the Iranians. Chaos is the goal and what we’re seeing are steps towards chaos. Israel is on board with this and so is Washington, DC - as usual, I might say.