The use of chemical
weapons in the Syrian civil war has triggered a new wave of international
outcry, this time perhaps leading to an American intervention of some kind.
However, there is not—as there has never been—any clear achievable objectives within
the grasp of the American military in Syria.
President Obama’s
foreign policy has consistently been marked by caution
rather than boldness. He began his first term with little foreign policy vision
beyond extricating America from Iraq and Afghanistan and returning American foreign
policy to the pre-9/11 status quo. The President’s efforts have consistently
been more devoted to domestic and economic agendas, perhaps understandably so.
However, when the advent of the Arab Spring impressed a historic opportunity
for transformation, Obama preferred a wait-and-see approach.
The time for caution in
Syria however has apparently come to an end. Lebanon, never known as a paragon
of stability, is becoming more and more drawn into the Syrian tragedy as
refugees continue pouring in. Jordan is facing similar strains with refugees,
while King Abdullah fends off his own domestic demands for reform. It’s clear
that with the conflict in Syria threatening to pull its neighbors into the
storm, that there are American interests at stake here, but the question
remains: Can an American-led intervention stymie the carnage in Syria?
It is patently obvious
that after the blunders in Iraq and Afghanistan, that there is little will for
a full-scale invasion and long-term mission of nation building and regime
change seen in during the previous decade. After the chemical attack US
officials indicated that there would be an immediate
strike, most assumed this would mean guided missiles. While the attacks
have since been delayed as Obama seeks congressional approval, such a strike
would do little to abate the conflict.
Assuming that such a
campaign could completely eradicate Syria’s cache of chemical weapons—a dubious
assumption at best—it has been made abundantly clear by the 100,000 dead that
the Assad regime excels at slaughter by more conventional means. So should the
mission entail strikes on all Syrian military installations? Such a campaign
would no doubt have the capacity to topple Bashar Assad and allow the rebels to
takeover, but the aftermath is wholly unknown. The rebels remain a fractious
bunch; while there are elements of a moderate opposition, there are Qatari
and Saudi proxies that likely want only to see Assad’s regime replaced with
a more amenable Sunni autocracy and al-Qaeda affiliates like Jabhat al-Nusra
that prefer a more religious brand of the same oppression.
Moreover the
consequences of an American strike are similarly unknown. It’s unlikely that
Assad and his allies would not launch their own assault on American targets or
on America’s allies. It may end in yet another conflagration between Hezbollah and
Israel or retaliatory attacks on American targets elsewhere in the region. While
Assad’s response is unknown, it is clear that the refugee crisis would only be exacerbated.
Even the mere threat of an American strike has increased the traffic of refugees
fleeing Syria, adding to the existing strains in Lebanon and Jordan. In any
event, the scenario only suggests escalation, not resolution.
That is not to say that
America is powerless, but rather that its military might represents the wrong
type of power. Diplomatic channels are still available to the White House.
- Restore
relations with Russia. There has been too much distance placed between
Moscow and Washington over little more than the Edward Snowden embarrassment.
Meanwhile lives are at stake in Syria, where American-Russian cooperation is
still possible.
- Work with Assad’s
allies.
To isolate Assad, America must reach out to all who are supporting him
including Russia, China, and even Iran. If America is truly motivated by
humanitarian concerns it will be humble enough to work with allies, competitors
and enemies alike to find a solution.
- Work with the America’s
allies. The
United States wields considerable influence with the countries in the Gulf like
Qatar and Saudi Arabia who are the primary patrons of Syria’s rebel groups,
some of which function as proxies on behalf of their financiers rather than the
Syrian people. Condemn such actions and support those that facilitate a
ceasefire rather than escalation.
- Assist with
neighboring countries with aid and relief efforts. The key to
containing the chaos will be assisting the host countries with coping with the
added strain of refugees. This is particularly important in Lebanon and Jordan,
where political instability is already an issue.
- If possible, work with Assad too. If Assad will talk, then talk to him. The idea has been floated that perhaps Assad is working to carve out a smaller enclave for his Alawite minority, allowing for a separate state to be formed elsewhere. It’s a highly problematic and morally bankrupt proposal, but if it ends the immediate bloodshed, giving the idea consideration may assist an effort toward a ceasefire. Allowing for Assad’s truncated political survival may provide a short term solution to the conflict, while allowing Russia, China and Iran to maintain one of their favored strategic partners. It’s not an idea that has a pleasant taste, nor is does it please foreign policy realists or idealists, but it may be one way of saving lives and stabilizing the situation so as create potential for further progress.
America has many
advanced missiles but none of them nor all of them function as a magic bullet.
A military effort will neither end the suffering of the Syrian population nor
realize any aspirations for democratic change.
