With the Obama planning attacks on Syria by means of airstrikes, it’s hardly because he wants to save people from Assad’s regime. In fact, with Obama stating that these airstrikes will be limited, it seems as if regime change is not the goal either.
Experts are asking what the meaning of limited actually. It cannot mean bombing Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile as this might end up killing more civilians, thanks to the deadly vapors that they release.
With that said, the US government isn’t aware of the location of these chemical weapons, so it doesn’t seem like a possible choice.
In all probability, Obama will go after military and command and control targets which includes the artillery and missile units that are used to launch chemical weapons but not the bunkers where they are located in.
What is for sure, however, is that Obama will not level Assad’s entire military infrastructure as this will only help Al Qaeda-linked rebels to gain access to these deadly chemical weapons. Phil Giraldi, a former CIA intelligence officer, believes that Obama considers regime change to be more dangerous than otherwise.
Speaking of danger however, the threat that Syria poses to the United States is minimal, so it clearly isn’t defensive in nature.
And since it’s likely that Assad may increase the violence much like Milosevic did during the bombing of Serbia, leading to the death of more Syrian civilians, it isn’t humanitarian in nature either.
So, with these airstrikes not being defensive or humanitarian in nature, what does Obama seek to achieve?
Only to keep his word that America would intervene if chemical weapons were used. Simply put, in order to punish Assad’s regime – an objective that neither the United Nations Security Council or Congress would be willing to approve.