Reuel Marc Gerecht has a typically perspicacious op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today advocating a stepped-up CIA campaign to oust Bashar al-Assad. He notes: “A coordinated, CIA-led effort to pour anti-tank, anti-aircraft, and anti-personnel weaponry through gaping holes in the regime’s border security wouldn’t be hard.”
Not only would this help to end the bloodshed (estimates are that close to 20,000 people have already been killed), as Gerecht argues, but it would also, as I have previously argued, give the U.S. the ability to shape a post-Assad regime. There is great danger not only in the continuing consequences of all-out civil war in Syria, which could give al-Qaeda and other extremists room to operate, but also great danger in a splintered, chaotic post-Assad environment where the most organized groups could be composed of Sunni fundamentalists backed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. An active American role now, whether overt or covert, could give us great influence with the rebels and help to avert some of the worst dangers if and when Assad is eventually topped. That is what happened in Libya, and the result is that a secular coalition has won its recent election.
Such action would, however, require a level of commitment that the administration has not hitherto displayed. As Gerecht notes, the administration seems to be hoping that Russia can somehow be persuaded to abandon Assad, which seems unlikely. Or else the administration may simply be hoping that Assad will be overthrown even absent much action on the part of the U.S. But, even though there have been a few more defections from the regime in recent days, the Assad inner circle seems to be holding firm. And even though the rebels increasingly control the countryside, the regime appears firmly ensconced in the major cities. With Russian and Iranian support, the regime could stay in power, in at least part of Syria, for a considerable time to come. That is a terrible outcome and one that vigorous American action can help to avert.
There need not be any post Assad regime. There need only be unending bloody anarchy. That's the best possible outcome for Syrians and all their neighbors.
"unending bloody anarachy," "[t]hat's the best possible outcome for Syrians."–Empress_Trudy n nI don't believe I have even taken that out of context. It needn't be said why that is dumb.
But in fact when your options are fascism, civil war or exporting mass murder to Israel, civil war is the best stable long run outcome for Syria and for all its neighbors. No one seemed outraged when Assad disappeared thousands in 'peacetime' so there's real reason to suddenly be outraged when it's out in the open. Better they should be consumed by themselves than put on a face of normalcy while doing more or less exactly the same thing on the quiet. This way there's less opportunity for them to propagate their occupation of Lebanon, attacks on Israel or otherwise being Iran's idiot cousin. If that means a few thousand Syrians perish, better them than anyone else.
Hmm, you know what, I have not ever pondered the philosophical quandary of whether it is better to fear indiscriminate artillery fire from a tyrant in a city severed from his immediate control, or to fear "hopefully" discriminate abduction or execution otherwise. n nForgive me my shortcomings. [End sarcastic note. Seriousness cue below:]
But, still, as I have said once before in reply to you, in a different light (this time, as far as concerns Syrians themselves), I seriously doubt that your given scenarios comprehensively span the plausible. (I think you're doubling down [continually] on argument [even when your argument isn't as suited for context as in the context of Syria] for the sake of self-consistency. I've had my doubts about intervention in Syria, but only because at one time I thought the window for intervention yielding positive results had possibly passed.) The Syrian's options may be such [I'll PRETEND to cede that] only as much as the Syrian decides it. You seem certain that the options are such even if America decides to decide it. (This debate might all be theoretical and useless anyway, given Obama is president. Still, I would wish my fellow Son of Light see the light…) n nAnyway, lessee here: if a Syrian has a peaceful life, isn't his life a good outcome of Syria (pardon my statism), even if that Syria happens to export mass murder? Even if your "options" are mutually exclusive, at least one given would be better for the Syrian over bloody civil war and anarchy.
(Now, I do hate that tyranny holds the "face of normalcy" in any day. But the Arab Spring at beginning in cause was such tyranny brought to account [if not tyranny itself, then some of its fruits, like starvation {that's clever, because "fruits" are a food group, but here a "fruit" is starvation}]. As well, let's not pretend that you value human life that greatly–now it's "better" a Syrian "than someone else," but, observe your comments on the topic over the last month, and see what consistency you've achieved there.) n nThere is also a reason to be "outraged" (or, rather, stirred) when there is open civil war in a country that is as conceivably hostile as possible to yours. It's a rare moment of opportunity to take a side in a war where you are not already a major actor, and to decide things in your interest. Turkey and other nations will not let the opportunity slip. (You would be right in the nature of your arguments that Russia and Iran don't see this as "opportunity." True. But even our "allies" in the region [aside from maybe Qatar] are of dubious nature, are they not? We must be weary that they see this as opportunity. They have obviously not shot for the "stability" route because they've supported the rebels. [Sensibly, as threatening Iranian ascension threatens the current Middle East stability, and because its our pole or the Iranian's and Russia's in the Middle East.])
Because intervening in a messy poorly understood internecine ancient war where no one's entirely sure who represents what or what they want or what the end game is supposed to look like or where anyone's power and motives originate or how or if there even is a governable entity we call "Syria" since it was literally carved out on a map in Paris as the Allies sliced apart the Austro Hungarian and Ottoman Empires randomly always always works out ok. Not only for the intervening forces but for the neighbors of all those countries and for the people who live there. n nLest we forget that no one in the west has ever publicly objected to the hundreds of thousands of people the Ayatollahs executed or the 150,000 killed in the second Algerian civil war in the 1990's or the reality that whatever is going on in Yemen has been going on for almost 15 years and that 300,000 people have been rendered refugees and 10's of thousands have been killed beyond the notice or concern of the west. See the point is, THIS IS their normal. Today I read the US is 'concerned' about Syria's apparent relocation of chemical weapons stores. Why? I mean why are they concerned. Arab states have a long and unapologetic history of using chemical weapons. Not just Iraq, but Egypt, Libya to name two. I say let nature take its course. At least then we'll have that many fewer secret depots of chemical weapons to worry about. Because it's not as if there's anything that anyone anywhere can do to prevent their barbarity. Again, This IS what they do. You can choose totalitarian police states that 'disappear' thousands of people or you can choose anarchy that does it in front of CNN. And for my money I'd rather they slaughtered one another than anyone else.
First Max Boot argues for support for "the rebels" then he asserts that if we don't a post Assad regime would be composed of Sunni extremists backed by the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia if they are not. Just WHO does Boot think the "rebels" are? Obviously Sunni extremists! n nI remember well the pre-Assad and pre Bath Party governments of Syria run by Sunni "moderates." They were as supportive of terrorism and terrorists as the Assads are. Their UN ambassadors were Jamil Baroody and Achmed Shukeiri who made sppeches about Israel with violent language which would make Jules Streicher proud. I, at the time a teen ager, sat in the General Assembly spectator's gallery when Shukeiri said, "Some say Israel is here to stay, but Israel is not going to stay." That was under the al-Atassi Sunni run government in the 1950s. n nWhen Arabs kill Arabs sell both sides weaponry with ammunition and get out of the way!
You have a military contending with some rebel force in a now long underway conflict. Were you to supply weaponry to both sides the rebel force would more certainly and sooner win out, because it has already lasted this long. (Lasting longer only gives the rebel force more credibility, and steals away from Assad's. We could expect military defection in Syria to skyrocket.) It also needn't be mentioned, but we aren't going to give an ASSAD weaponry anytime in the next millenium. (So, at the least, your last line is simply a worthless trope.)
As well, just as importantly, extremists hardly compose all of the rebel combatants in Syria. What should we make of military defectors? Are defectors here extremists as well, who simply won't give orders to fire or won't personally fire on their own people? And is one an extremist if they join a fight when they are already being fired upon? (The Syrian miltary seems devoid of knowledge of modern military tactics, a partial reason this conflict has lasted so long already, and seems to just be shelling and firing on cities held by rebels.) n nWhile you may have fears (these being very worthy fears) that the Arab Spring and its more localized sub-events may be seized to the desired **effects** of Islamists, you cannot argue that Islamists (or, rather, Islamist citizens and groups) were the **cause** of it. It is hardly **obvious** that the rebels are solely Sunni extremists–it hardly is **obvious** that such even make a plurality of the rebels in Syria.