|
Trying to Help Syria Would Destroy It
Syrians are fond of saying that their country is "the beating heart of the Arab world," having played an outsize role in the history and politics of the region, from the Islamic golden age in the 7th century and the Arab Revolt during World War I to the Arab-Israeli wars. After 2-1/2 years of civil conflict, however, it is becoming more difficult to think of Syria as the spirit and soul of the region.There was a moment early in the Syrian crisis when one could imagine that foreign intervention would have had salutary effects. In January 2012, I wrote that it was "time to think seriously about intervening in Syria" and laid out moral and strategic arguments in a piece for the Atlantic's Web site. No link to the "I toldya so" article. At that time, the conflict had killed 5,000 people, the vast majority at the hands of the regime. This was more than Moammar Gaddafi had killed on the eve of NATO operations in Libya. If Libyans deserved protection, then Syrians did, too. No blood for oil! Besides, some of see how well Libya turned out. There is another concern that should figure into the president's calculations: The missile strikes the White House is contemplating would advance Syria's dissolution. Assad would remain defiant in the face of an attack. It is not as if he is constrained now, but he would probably step up the violence both to exert control within his country and to demonstrate that the United States and its allies cannot intimidate him. Like a schoolyard bully, he'd make more innocents pay the price. At the same time, the regime's Iranian patrons and Hezbollah supporters would increase their investment in the conflict, meaning more weapons and more fighters pouring into Syria -- resulting in more atrocities. And on the other side, Syrian opposition groups would welcome a steady stream of foreign fighters who care more about killing Alawites and Shiites than the fate of the country. This environment would heighten Syria's substantial sectarian, ethnic and political divisions, pulling the country apart. Like Yugoslavia, but with more brutality. The formidable U.S. armed forces could certainly damage Assad's considerably less potent military. But in an astonishing irony that only the conflict in Syria could produce, American and allied cruise missiles would be degrading the capability of the regime's military units to the benefit of the al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad -- the same militants whom U.S. drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen. Military strikes would also complicate Washington's longer-term desire to bring stability to a country that borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. Washington just wishes this would all go away. Champ made nice to everyone, why can't they all just get along? Unlike Yugoslavia, which ripped itself apart in the 1990s, Syria has no obvious successor states, meaning there would be violence and instability in the heart of the Middle East for many years to come. I like popcorn as much as anyone, but I think there may be better outcomes without our intervention. Champ already has zero credibility. Nothing he can do now to restore it. Posted by: Bobby 2013-09-01 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=375042 |