Calls are growing among both conservatives and liberals for a U.S.-led intervention—including possible military force—in Syria. As in the case of the 2011 Libya intervention, some advocates insist that the goal is to protect Syrian civilians from the onslaught of President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces.
Others, though, are more candid and admit that the real objective would be to overthrow Assad’s regime. An open letter that fifty-six prominent conservative political and foreign-policy activists—including William Kristol, Max Boot, Elizabeth Cheney and other intellectual architects of the disastrous Iraq war—sent to President Obama in mid-February was a prime example. Although that letter cited humanitarian goals, the signers had a much broader objective, arguing that the Assad government “poses a grave threat to national security interests of the United States.” (Assad’s principal offense appeared to be his links to Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.) The letter added that “immediate actions” should be taken to “hasten an end to the Assad regime.” Specific measures include establishing “safe zones,” from which Syrian security forces would be barred, and providing a “full range of direct assistance,” including “self- defense aid” (i.e. weapons) to rebel forces. Proponents also emphasized that the option of direct U.S. military action must not be taken off the table.
As the Libya episode demonstrated, the differing rationales are probably a distinction without a difference. Once the UN Security Council passed its resolution authorizing the use of force, the “humanitarian intervention” in Libya quickly turned into a campaign for forcible regime change. One would expect that an intervention in Syria—even one ostensibly for the protection of innocent civilians—would soon evolve in the same fashion.
There is no doubt that the Assad regime is brutal and repulsive. But before we embark on yet another regime-change crusade, it would be wise to pause and consider possible outcomes that might not be to our liking. Previous interventions in such places as Iraq and Libya have been notorious for undesirable, unintended consequences. Skepticism is warranted regarding calls for military involvement in Syria.
Western accounts of the bloodshed there are largely simplistic melodramas, with villainous Assad forces slaughtering innocent advocates of democracy. We’ve seen such grotesque oversimplifications of complex conflicts before, most notably during the 1990s in the Balkans. The actual situation in Syria is murky, with an armed insurgency directed against the Assad government. Given the complex ethno-religious makeup of Syria, we need to be extremely wary about viewing the violence there as a Manichean struggle between good and evil.
Syria’s population is divided among Sunni Arabs (a little over half the population), Christians (about 10-12 percent), Alawites, a Shiite offshoot (also about 10-12 percent), Druze (about six percent), and various, mostly Sunni, ethnic minorities, primarily Kurds and Armenians. The Alawite Assad family has based its power for more than four decades on the solid loyalty of its religious bloc in a loose alliance with Christians, Druze and, sometimes, with one or more of the other, smaller ethnic groups. What we see today may be largely a Sunni Arab bid to overthrow that minority regime—fueled in part because many devout Muslims consider Alawites to be heretics.
What is especially troubling is that while the Assad coalition is primarily secular, the ideological composition of the opposition is far more opaque. There certainly seem to be Islamist elements, although the extent of their strength is uncertain. The suicide bombings in the city of Aleppo in early February and other incidents also suggest a possible al-Qaeda link.
At a minimum, such uncertainty ought to cause would-be U.S. and other Western crusaders to hesitate. Advocates of the Iraq intervention insisted that Iraqis would greet U.S. and coalition forces as liberators and strew their paths with rose petals. More than 4,400 dead Americans, more than 100,000 dead Iraqis, and some $850 billion U.S. tax dollars later, it is painfully evident that such predictions were naive. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that even the basic goal of bringing democracy to Iraq is slipping away. The regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki grows more authoritarian by the day.
Comments
Diagnosis of Syrian Conflict Is Bad Unless?
The syrian conflict manifested itself as one of the most difficult conflicts of the twenty first century. The irony is that the world is watching genocide on news channel and not being able to come out with a unanimous decision to stop the on slaughter. After one year of revolution and more than nine thousand dead , failing of the Arab league inspector mission,UNSC vote with double veto ,UNGA majority vote with out practical approach, came the meeting in Tunisia with its unproductive and lack of firm decisions to end the crisis or at least to put it on the right track. It is obvious that the world community is moving from one pit to another concerning the syrian conflict .All of the above is playing a negative role on the syrian conflict sending the wrong message to the syrian people," sorry, but you are on your own." As if we are living in a world that forgot the essence of existence, the Value Theory, "Righteousness is high and nothing goes higher".
The main reason is,"Syria is almost the only country where the so-called Arab Spring could change the geostrategic concept of the region," said Olivier Roy, a French historian of the Middle East. He offered as a counterexample Egypt and Tunisia, where new leaders seemed to be keeping similar alliances and geopolitical positions. "But in Syria," Mr. Roy said, "if the regime is toppled, we have a totally new landscape.
I will try to diagnose the causes of this lingering confusion in dealing with the Syrian Revolution which are:
1-Experience of the syrian Regime with these types of conflicts .Suppression with an armed fist of the previous revolt in 1982.While bombing Homs and Idleb and various syrian cities, today Asaad asked the syrian people to vote on a new constitution for the country! The syrian people thinking "That awkward moment when you abuse me beat me and shoot me and act like nothing has happened!"Change is sweet, but?
2-The ability of the Syrian Regime to play his strong allies card in the region and the world;
Iran,(Hizbullah): these two helped in neutralizing the Lebanese, the western front,and Iraq ,the eastern front,support of the revolution .Moreover,Russia and China support of this regime manifested in a double veto in the UNSC vote which hindered a unanimous world intervention through the UN security council to end the conflict.
3-Manipulation of the minorities in syria and playing on their emotions, fear mongering ,with the islamists Tsunami that will hit the syrian shores to cause a new exodus of these minorities which includes Christians, Druze , Alawites , and even liberal Sunni middle class in Syria. The regime is doing his best to keep their areas calm . He went even as far as to divide and change the syrian community,a secular national community,into a sectarian community. The regime in a discriminatory manner treated the people captured in the riots from these sects better than their fellow Sunni colleagues, as if telling these minorities this revolution is not yours .The syrian regime is doing his best to stay in power even this will back fire in the future and send syria into the abyss .In addition to the opposition lack of the reassurance of the minorities in syria they are hindering the revolution progress by their lack of unity which I will discuss later .The issue of reassurance of minorities needs hands on approach and a better diplomatic efforts of the syrian opposition to meet with all minority groups social and political figures and to have representatives on their board from all ethnic and different sects, Background, of the syrian society.
4-The Syrian Regime propaganda used for the last forty years that he is the last of the "Mohegans"!?Arab Fortress, that stands for and defends Palestine and fights against imperialism and its conspiracy against the palestinian people. After This theory failed to many known reasons including Hamas office closure in Damascus and their reconciliation with the Palestinian Authority in Doha to form a unity government .The loss of the palestinian card manifested by "Hamas" Leader Ismael Hanniya praying for the syrian revolution in an Egyptian mosque .All of the above pushed the regime to switch gears by telling the syrian people that he is fighting islamic terrorist on syrian soil to legitimize his brutal actions.
5-Lack of unity and coordination of the syrian opposition in and outside Syria .This issue could be solved by contacting and unifying all the syrian opposition Figures in and outside syria in a symposium in Turkey or any other country .This should include political and military figures and they should come out with a unified projected plan of post Asaad Syria government based on freedom of speech and human rights including freedom of religion. This will send a strong message to the world and to the syrian who has mixed feeling about this revolution.
6-Weaknesses of the international community and its inability to stand firm with a just cause such as the syrian revolution and democracy in syria!As I mentioned above the international community failed to meet the syrian people demands many times on all aspect . This was manifested yesterday in Tunisia meeting of the Friends of Syria .One of the activists of the syrian revolution said that if syria has friends the syrian regime will not be able to kill his people as we speak!The meeting was a failure and the Saudis,the major supporter of the syrian revolution and a key player in the region left the meeting .Their reasoning was this meeting will lead to an unproductive outcome. The Saudi delegate was right. While they were meeting in Tunisia Syrian regime was killing his people in Homs, Baba Amro and elsewhere . As if the delegates were speaking of a different country .I understand that the Syrian revolution is one of the Arab Spring revolutions but Syria is not similar to Tunis ,Egypt,or Yemen where a minimal intervention from the Arab League or the World community lead to the fall of these regimes. Bin Ali ,Tunis removed president and Moubarak did not bomb their people .Ali Abdallah Saleh agreed on and signed on a Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states plan; to resign and to give power to his Vice president. Yesterday, Yemen, elected a new president ,Abd-Rabo Mansour Hadi.
Countries are different and no revolution is exactly the same ,the syrian regime is behaving like the Gaddaffi regime but with a license to kill and more time to crack down on the revolution unfortunately!If the responsibility to protect civilians is a legitimate new part of international law, why would it apply to Libya and not to Syria? Why shouldn't the world intervene in what is already a one-sided civil war?
Last but not least," late is better than never". The world community has a moral value toward the syrian people because Human Rights are Dead in Syria with Baba Amro .They should by now have at least a plan for an indirect intervention which should include ;human aid,financial and moral support ,logistic training of the opposition groups, media support ,safe zones for opposition and families. And finally a crisis management council represents the free world to reassess the progress of the conflict and this indirect intervention on a weekly basis .
7-Finally, After a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a limited intervention in Libya that was harshly criticized by Republicans president Obama wants no intervention in Syria. I understand the fear of the analysts and generals of the armies of the free world and the inability to form a coalition on a military or paramilitary intervention in Syria . Walid Joumblatt, the chief of the Druze ,mentioned that" probably the west is hiding behind the UNSC double veto to not to intervene in a direct Military intervention in Syria , however ,no matter how bad these flash backs from prior interventions could get this should not delete the idea of an unforeseen direct military intervention similar to that used in Kosovo if all efforts failed and the killing did not stop. Moreover,Pentagon officials said planners had been asked to look at a range of military options for Syria, but they anticipated no American involvement. Of course, they said the same for Libya, until the White House changed course.
Sincerely,
Dr Shadi Ayyas
One must beware the unintended consequence of both intervention AND non-intervention. The rise of the Nusrah organization and the increasing radicalization of Syrian Sunnis must be one of the factors placed on the balance scale along with the problems of intervention. But only looking at the downside of intervention is an incomplete analysis.