海角大神

The calls for forceful action from France and other Western powers in the wake of suspected large-scale chemical weapons use in Syria are prompting comparisons to the Western intervention in Libya two years ago.

In that case, the United States opted for 鈥渓eading from behind鈥� as European-led NATO forces toppled Muammar Qaddafi.

But tough rhetoric aside, a repeat of an intervention with America in a supporting role is very unlikely, say regional and transatlantic diplomatic analysts.

No Western intervention will occur unless proof emerges that the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad unleashed some of the regime鈥檚 fearsome chemical weapons on the Damascus suburbs this week, they agree. But even if proof eventually emerges 鈥� at this point a big 鈥渋f鈥� 鈥� the complexities of the Syrian conflict and the likelihood that any intervention would not see quick results would almost certainly require the US to take the lead.

And despite President Obama鈥檚 鈥渞ed line鈥� of a year ago concerning chemical weapons use in Syria, no one should expect a large-scale US intervention in Syria under any circumstances, the analysts add.

鈥淲ere there to be some kind of direct Western intervention in Syria, the US would be out front, not behind,鈥� says Charles Kupchan, an expert in transatlantic relations at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Europe鈥檚 two major defense powers, Britain and France, don鈥檛 have the 鈥渁ssets鈥� to lead such an intervention, Syria is farther away from them than is Libya, and the international and regional complexities mean the US would have to take the lead.

鈥淭he likelihood of a repeat of Libya is low,鈥� Mr. Kupchan says.

But that reality has not stopped France and others from assuming a more aggressive and out-front position toward the Syrian conflict.

That forcefulness was on display again Thursday, as French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius demanded a 鈥渞eaction of force鈥� if the use of chemical weapons is proved.

Turkey also called for immediate action, saying 鈥渁ll red lines have been crossed鈥� by Mr. Assad in his fight with rebels seeking his ouster. And Britain warned that 鈥渨e cannot rule out any option,鈥� even though it said a 鈥減olitical solution鈥� to Syria鈥檚 civil war remains preferable.

All this has a familiar ring, Kupchan says.

鈥淭his is not the first time that US allies have been more forward-leaning on some kind of intervention in Syria than the US,鈥� says Kupchan, who is also a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University in Washington. 鈥淭he British and the French have been steadily out front in wanting to provide arms to the opposition and on other more-forceful measures. But at the end of the day,鈥� he adds, 鈥渢he allies are rhetorically more out front of the US than in reality.鈥�

The Obama administration was quick to join France, Britain, and 34 other nations in demanding that a United Nations chemical-weapons team already in Syria be allowed to investigate Wednesday鈥檚 suspected large-scale use of chemical weapons 鈥� possibly the nerve gas sarin, which Syria stockpiles 鈥� against rebel strongholds in the Damascus outskirts.

The White House demanded Thursday that Syria grant the UN team 鈥渋mmediate and unfettered access鈥� to the attack site. But the administration has shied away from the interventionist language emanating from other Western capitals.

At the State Department Thursday, spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Mr. Obama has directed US intelligence agencies to work on determining if chemical weapons were used. The president has a range of options for action if an assessment finds the use of chemical weapons, she added.

Russia and China, both supporters of Assad, thwarted UN Security Council passage of a statement that called on the UN to 鈥渦rgently investigate鈥� the latest attack. Rebel sources claim up to 1,300 Syrians, including many women and children, were killed.

Instead, the approved, watered-down statement expresses a desire to clarify what happened in the attack, which it deems a 鈥渟erious escalation鈥� of the Syrian conflict. On Thursday, the UN sent the Syrian government a formal request that its team in Syria be allowed to investigate the attack site.

Arriving at the facts about just what happened Wednesday won鈥檛 be easy, weapons experts say. Photo and video evidence suggests some kind of chemical contact. But some point to videos showing people administering some kind of antidote via syringe to victims 鈥� adding that improper injection of some nerve-gas antidotes could have been deadlier than what might have been misconstrued as a chemical attack.

Another complicating factor: Syrian forces continued Thursday to bombard the areas affected by Wednesday鈥檚 attack, effectively putting the area off limits to any inspection and almost certainly destroying evidence that might be gathered.

Yet even if some proof of a chemical attack by Assad鈥檚 forces is forthcoming, the Western response is not likely to be on the scale of the Libya intervention, Kupchan says.

鈥淓ven if in the short term the Libya intervention was seen to have gone relatively well 鈥� Qaddafi was toppled 鈥� over the long term it鈥檚 seen as having had some questionable effects,鈥� he says.

At the top of that list for Americans is Benghazi, the eastern Libyan city and cradle of the Libyan opposition where a year after Qaddafi鈥檚 death, a terrorist attack on the US mission left US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans dead.

But the list of 鈥渜uestionable鈥� long-term effects of the intervention also includes the post-conflict flow of Qaddafi鈥檚 unsecured arms into Mali 鈥� where the French eventually intervened against pro-Al Qaeda militants 鈥� and mounting evidence of Libya turning into a 鈥渇ailed state,鈥� Kupchan says.

Obama will come under intense pressure to intervene in Syria in some form if his 鈥渞ed line鈥� was definitely crossed by a large-scale chemical attack, analysts say. But a leader who is already cautious about military intervention will probably be even more so after Libya, they add.

Syria鈥檚 volatile mix of moderate nationalists, jihadists, and foreign fighters in the opposition to Assad is just one reason that 鈥済etting more deeply involved in Syria is more complicated and dangerous than it was in Libya,鈥� Kupchan says.

Other factors: Syria鈥檚 complex sectarian divide and the inability of Syria鈥檚 opposition to develop into a coherent fighting force on the ground.

Even with proof of a large-scale chemical weapons attack, US airstrikes on Syrian government buildings and military installations are the extent of what Kuphcan would expect to see.

Even then, he adds, he鈥檇 anticipate 鈥渟tandoff attacks,鈥� perhaps by cruise missiles launched from ships, which would send a message to Assad without putting US forces in harm鈥檚 way.