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.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.