The launch of 59 Tomahawk missiles against the Syrian regime by the US has again brought the region into focus. While the world deplores the use of chemical weapons, there is always a lingering doubt on who is correct; the US which blames Syria for the strike or the Russians who claim it was done by the rebels to malign the regime.

The Russians and the Iranians strongly back Bashar-el Assad and refuse to discuss any future of Syria without him.

The US and its allies are clear and seek a Syria without Assad, hence openly support rebels seeking to oust him. In this confusion, there is no mention of who could replace Assad, and how a vacuum could possibly create another Iraq or Libya, where Islamist groups have re-emerged.

For over seven years, Syria has been the epicentre of civil strife fuelled by a proxy war between opposing superpowers. Weapons under production are tested on its soil, new military bases created, cities destroyed, populations displaced and innocent civilians killed.

All this to enable one man to be overthrown or supported to continue in power. Crudely put, Assad is a male version of ‘Helen of Troy’, launching a million bombs or missiles.

The Syrian scenario has a multitude of groups operating almost independently, with latent support from powerful nations or neighbours. This has enabled the ISIS to flourish, draw in cadre, launch assaults in neighbouring countries and regions far from the battle zone, resulting in the greatest humanitarian crisis and migration since World War II.

The missile strikes by the US and its oft repeated claim that Assad must go, bring back haunting memories of similar claims in earlier days and subsequent fallouts.

The US walked into Iraq, claiming Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Many theories abound on the true reasons for its intervention. The most logical is that post his defeat in Kuwait, Saddam was contemplating shifting to another currency for sale of oil in lieu of the dollar.

This would have harmed the US economy as the dollar being an international currency enables it to continue with its fiscal policy of deficits and still control the world economy. Hence, Saddam had to go and the WMDs were only an excuse.

The US waded in, destroyed his regime and installed a unity government. It disintegrated Iraq’s military and attempted to re-create it. The result was chaos, breakdown of law and order and opened doors for the ISIS to rise from the ashes.

The US withdrew without ensuring stabilisation. It failed to comprehend the geopolitical requirements of the region, implying a strong divide between communities, requiring a strong government and powerful military to control the region.

The US is back, battling the ISIS. Gaddafi in Libya handed over designs of a nuclear weapon obtained clandestinely from Pakistan and North Korea to the US, seeking peace.

When the Arab Spring commenced in Libya, the US supported the uprising. Barack Obama admitted it was his gravest mistake.

In February 2011, at the commencement of the uprising, led by the al Qaeda, the US launched over 130 Tomahawk missiles on the Libyan military and eliminated its ability to restore order. The result was overthrow of Gaddafi and re-emergence of the al Qaeda, which the US has recommenced engaging.

Libya remains unstable, with different factions controlling different parts of the country. While Syria, Iraq and Libya are oil producers, North Korea is not. Hence the country has only been threatened but never acted against.

For a nation like the US, with technology and precision missiles at its beck and call, monitoring the movement and location of any North Korean leader (present or past) was never impossible, nor was eliminating him.

There would always be an element of risk, which sometime back could have been accepted. Presently with a vast collection of missiles and nuclear devices, North Korea is a missed opportunity.

The US intervention in Afghanistan was hurried, seeking revenge and retribution to 9/11. The operations were swift and body bags were accepted back home; after all, they were avenging American lives. The elimination of Osama Bin Laden was the turning point.

The aim was achieved, America’s most wanted man was brought to justice and there was no need for it to remain. Thus Obama began implementing his plans for withdrawal, even without stabilising the country or annihilating the Taliban.

The US was seeking an exit strategy, but there was no answer in sight. Presently, Afghanistan remains a mess, solely because the US played soft with Pakistan which did and continues to support the Taliban. Ignoring the US, other nations in the neighbourhood have jumped in, attempting to resolve the Afghanistan tangle.

It could end with another regime change with the Taliban either joining the government or controlling part of the country. The missile strike on Syria has resulted in the US and Russia drifting further apart and cooperation, if any, on the future of Syria is all but over.

For any nation, irrespective of how powerful it is, attempting a regime change in another nation unless there is a locally acceptable alternative, especially where sect, tribal and ethnic differences exist, would fail. It would open doors for radical Islamic groups to emerge destabilising a larger region. Recent history has proved this, but lessons have been ignored.

Maintaining forces to ensure stabilisation, post a regime change, is an expensive effort for any power. Hence it compels them to pull out before completion of the mission, solely on economic grounds. Before world powers take any decision on Assad’s future, the region should be stabilised and an alternative acceptable to all parties must exist. Accountability to prevent a recurrence of Iraq, Libya or Afghanistan should be laid down.

The world community must unite against superpower games, seeking enhanced control over regions and resources, killing innocent humans and impacting nations, including those far removed from the conflict, solely for personal interest and power.

The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.