AMU Homeland Security Opinion

Syria Strike In Limbo Over Weekend

Brett Daniel Shehadey
Special Contributor for In Homeland Security

President Barack Obama continues to seek international and national support for a military strike against Bashar al Assad and his government in Syria as a punishment for breaking international law on August 21. Why now? There have been at least a few other chemical weapons attacks that have made the news and gained confirmation. The world and the US remain reluctant to enter into the Syrian Civil War at any cost.

Soft spoken Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently said: “I must warn that ill-considered military action could cause serious and tragic consequences, and with an increased threat of further sectarian violence.” The key words are “ill-considered.”

The EU is convinced that the Syrian government is responsible for a “blatant violation of international law, a war crime and a crime against humanity.” They expressed that any military strike should wait until after the UN investigation probe looking into the evidence of the most alleged chemical weapons attack. The US has conducted its own investigation and is convinced that this was a chemical attack carried out by the Assad regime. The EU for the most part is against a military strike but does want a strong political response: “Only a political solution can end this terrible bloodshed, grave violation of human rights and the far reaching destruction of Syria,” said Catherin Ashton, High Representative of Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The exception has been France, who wants a strike response for the releasing of the possible sarin gas. The UK parliament has already voted and barred Prime Minister David Cameron of any direct military action to be taken against Syria.

The US Senate awaits a vote, possibly end week. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a military strike with a vote of 10-7 last week. Had two more democrats voted against it, the then 9-8 tally resolution would never have made it. Ironically, Democrats have been more in favor of the war.

In the House, according to the Washington Post, 226 members are against or leaning against military action; around 111 are undecided and only 25 are resolutely for it. The conflict does not directly threaten the US or its allies as the President himself has stated. It might take until September 16 before the House votes.

About 51 percent of Americans do not want US military intervention- down from 60 percent polling figures just weeks ago. But only 36 percent actually support the President’s proposal for action.

Former President Bill Clinton is often cited as a good example for a comparison. In 1994 he did not intervene in the Rwandan Civil War which turned out to be a genocide for 800,000 of the Tutsi tribal people. Clinton listened to public opinion against the intervention and was rewarded with popularity but a “bystander” to genocide. This humanitarian line theme is being pushed hard in spite of Iraq and Afghanistan’s limited short-term successes and US military involvement, loss and expenditure. However, it is a very false match for a case example. In Syria, the problem has been and still is refugees and internally displaced peoples while massacres remain small for a state-wide Civil War of this side and total deaths are reported at over 100,000 after almost three years. Rwanda experienced eight times that death toll in only a hundred days.

With Syria, more deaths may occur with refugees and the internally displaced than with Assad. On the other hand, without the war criminal Assad, even more wide-spread massacres are likely to take place.

All of this does not mean the US should do nothing, but a better question is what will the late US military strikes accomplish? Already late in the game, the US has not shown, nor does it plan to show the level of political commitment and strategic operational intent that the Russians and Iranians are putting into the War.

Even at the best case scenario of a US strike over time looks something like this- the US topples the regime by next Spring of 2014 and the government can no longer threaten the people- and to add more wishful thinking- the US is able to find and destroy every chemical weapons stock pile throughout all of Syria- the state then goes into immediate post-war chaos. Tens of thousands of foreign Islamic militants and terrorists, including al Qaeda affiliates like al Nusra, gain strongholds; there is a genocide of the Shia Alawaite community (hundreds of thousands), militias in every city, war lords, etc. So as terrible as it is right now, thing could get a lot worse; even if the US is at its most effective and efficient game. This is somewhat the grim logic of the Russian government.

Some have mocked that the US would only become al Qaeda’s air force if it bombs Syria. Who would we be supporting? Al Qaeda affiliates just captured a historic Christian town of Maaloula (now only 10 percent of the demographic). Christians are often selectively targeted in Syria for suspected ties to the Assad regime. The fate of groups like the Maaloua Christians must be weighted equally with the fate of previous and future chemical attacks in the aftermath.

Even with balancing a US strike as a punishment, Russia, China and Iran are on various levels maintaining Assad’s confidence and fortifying his position. A near unilateral US strike without EU and UN backing is precarious politically but most importantly another setback for the already crumbling US national interest in the Middle East and Central Asia.

I have mentioned a few alternatives to a direct, open, and conventional US military option including raising a volunteer international private force and using third parties to intervene (like Israel, Turkey and the Arab states). The problem with any of these, including the missile strike option the President is pushing, is that none of them is a genuine solution to a humanitarian crisis. None of them will “solve” them but this proposed particular course will likely acerbate future negative outcomes for the US and allies, very much “unlike” Kosovo.

An inside official said of the action: “It will not strategically impact the current situation in the war, which the Syrians have well in hand, though fighting could go on for another two years.”

The two options I suggest at least preserve the American dignity, is for the US to be placed in the spotlight for helping as the number one supporter for the refugees in assistance, medical supplies, food, shelter, relocation, etc. The fact that the US and EU have not done so on the international stage to the expectations of pure-hearted humanitarianists is the biggest blunder- in a long line of US policy choices- in regards to the Syrian conflict. The loss of political control and legitimacy means Russia sound better than us when they speak, even defending a cold calculating charmer like Assad.

I read in a comment somewhere a while back that the US should shelter, feed, train and then try and turn all the 2 million refugees into an anti-Assad guerrilla fighting force to retake their homeland. That might be another interesting proposal to add to the mix, even if less than 5 percent, that under 100,000. Of course, they would need arms and weapons and backing from Washington!

Who do we trust a little more than the people we trust the least?

Comments are closed.