There is something that I don’t get about opponents of greater American action in Syria, such as the freelance reporter Benjamin Hall, who was recently in Aleppo. He points out, as other observers have, that the rebels are disorganized and that various factions are often at odds with one another. They don’t have a central, unified leadership. Moreover, the rebel ranks include ”Salafi jihadists” who “talk of slaying the minority Alawites, and [who] call for both the immediate support of America, and its immediate demise. These extremist groups are getting weapons from Saudi Arabia and Qatar already; they are not groups that the West would choose to arm. Compared with them, it is not clear that Mr. Assad is the bigger foe.” Therefore, Hall recommends not arming the rebels–although he is open to the imposition of a no-fly zone.
Here’s where I don’t follow the logic: Granted, everything he is saying is true–but that is what is happening now, while the U.S. is not arming the rebels and is not imposing a no-fly zone or helping to set up buffer zones for refugees. What makes Hall think that, given the current situation, there is any option of allowing Assad to remain in power and re-impose control? That seems extremely unlikely. What seems more likely, if we continue on the current path, is that the war will continue taking a deadly toll, jihadists will continue to play an ever-bigger role, and chaos will continue to spread across Syria.
Admittedly, stepping in to help topple Assad brings no guarantee of an idyllic post-Assad state–far from it. There is indeed, as Hall notes, a great danger of continuing instability and civil war even after Assad is gone. This could be Libya on steroids or, put another way, a replay of Iraq without U.S. troops to serve as a stabilizing force.
I get all that, but the status quo is hardly peaceful either–Syria is already seeing at least as much bloodshed as Iraq saw during the height of its own internal war. There is no guarantee that the situation will be improved with Assad gone, but there is a guarantee that the situation will remain pretty awful as long as Assad is in power. And there is at least the chance that if the U.S. acts decisively, in cooperation with allies, to topple Assad, it will give us a greater say in the composition of a post-Assad regime, allowing us to help steer Syria in a more moderate direction.
There is no perfect policy choice in Syria–only least bad and worst options. But the worst option of all, I would argue, is to allow the current conflict to rage unabated.
Syria is slowly self destructing. Why speed it up with intervention? If we speed it up, more bad guys of fighting age remain alive at the end. n n
It is well past time to act in the U.S. national interest in Syria, but it requires a Machiavellian perspective and not the rose-colored glasses of Obama (and Bush for that matter). We must understand a few fundamental points about Syria: n n1. The rebellion consists of a temporary alliance among otherwise irreconcilable groups. (Free Syrian Army secularists or nominal Muslims vs. Salafists vs. Kurds etc..). n n2. This Rebel Alliance will only last as long as (A) one group gains a decisive military advantage over the other groups, or (B) Assad is overthrown. n n3. Other than perhaps Israel, there is *no* other ally of the U.S. with shared interests in post-Assad Syria. Turkey is increasingly an Islamist state that would like nothing more than to see Syria as its vassal. Turkey is really not our friend and we need to recognize this in Syria and elsewhere. This means that the U.S. has to act in its own interest and, if necessary, against that of Turkey. Same goes with Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The fact that they are arming Islamists in Syria says it all. n n4. The U.S. is uniquely able to put a decisive thumb on the scale in favor of virtually any rebel group (or groups) that it chooses, giving these groups a huge advantage in post-Assad Syria. n n5. The U.S. can tip the scales in this fashion *without* sending in ground troops or establishing no-fly zones. n n6. There *are* rebel groups in Syria that will align with the U.S. for the simple reason that they are desperate for the kind of assistance that the U.S. can bring. This is the Machiavelli part. We find rebel groups who will play by our rules, not because they are doe-eyed democratic idealists who love the U.S.A. but because they are in a life in death struggle with Assad (at the moment) and will be in a death match against the other rebel groups once Assad is gone. The key is that they need us more than we need them. And in Machiavellian fashion, the U.S. must always keep these groups dependent upon U.S. aid for their survival, by playing them off against other groups if necessary. n n7. The sooner we start lining up client rebel groups in Syria the more flexibility we will have in the long run and the more dependent those groups will be on U.S. assistance. The longer we wait the greater the chance that an unfriendly power will fill the vacuum we are refusing to fill right now, making it difficult to get in later. n n8. The installation of a pro-U.S. (or at least amenable) government in Syria would be game-changing in the Middle East: for Israel, for Lebanon, for Jordan, for Iraq and for Iran. Syria is immensely important to U.S. interests and power projection in the Middle East.
I was with you until point 8. We will never have pro-American government in Syria what ever consequences of the civil war are. Shia majority will elect “democratically” Muslim Brotherhood or its surrogate, which is not any guarantee of piece in the region. We need to stay out of civil war period and face consequences when they come. One more point on Turkey. It is more complicated with them because of their NATO status. We need to restrain them from involvement because they my drag whole NATO in, which is us (USA) as a major military force.
It need not be "pro-American" Grig. It only need only align with our interests in the region (and compared to Assad's Syria even siding with our interest 50% of the time while bad-mouthing us would be a huge improvement). Again, it is simple power politics. The Free Syrian Army (or at least elements) view the Islamists and MB as competitors and threats. According to several reporters, they are already begging for U.S. support in order to combat the growing power of the Islamists. That isn't going to change when Assad falls but will intensify. Syria is not ready for real democracy at this point so the U.S. should not push for that until the group we are supporting and is beholden to us can decisively win any so-called election.
Hi n nThose secular elements or so called don’t have any base in the region. If we look on Egypt, the democratic process brought in Muslim Brotherhood, who is no friends to any of our values. At the same time Mohamed Elbarody disappear from the political scene as secular or pro-democratic leader. We already dealt with Mubarak who was “50% with us.” It didn’t work. We were getting enemies on both side of the aisle as progressives and religious zealots. I am still strong supporter of to stay out of the civil war and let it play out. n
6. Ah, not necessarily….
Well, of course, "not necessarily." Every statement you could make could be qualified with a "not necessarily." The point is that Iran, Russia and China and Hezbollah are backing the Assad regime. That automatically gives the U.S. an opening with the non-Islamist rebels which the U.S. should be exploiting to maximum effect (short of any ground troops or direct air support— although some anonymous cruise missiles flying through Assad's window might be appropriate at some point). Perhaps the FSA is not sufficiently desperate enough to accept our conditions for support. Fine. We can keep searching for other groups that will cut a deal and let the FSA stew awhile. But if we do nothing, we can be sure that others who do not share our interests will fill the void. Syria is way too important to let that happen.
Hi Max n nSyria can only be a Libya scenario. But the country already embedded into hot zone of all other struggling: Jews, Kurds, Shia, Sunni, Alawites and list can go on. We will never get OK from United Nation Security Council (Russia and China) to go in. Don’t we learn about unilateral involvement and if you even call it “coalition of willing” it is still a unilateral involvement on USA behave. If Romney wins and them makes a move to engage in Syria or other places, it will doomed Republicans for generations to come. n
Grig, why do you assume that Max or anyone else is talking about "going in" to Syria? There are lots of options for taking Assad out without putting any troops there.
Hi n nWhat are those options? If it is special forces operations, I think we already doing it. n
I haven't heard anyone outside of DC express any interest in getting involved in Syria in any fashion. Then again, guys like Max don't have to make their case to the people do they?