The Syrian Dilemma

Syria is one of those topics that reminds me how fortunate I am to not be the President of the United States.  (A good fortune for many others, I am sure!)  Because this issue starts out as a very bad premise to begin with, and good answers rarely flow from such a bad premise.  There are numerous valid viewpoints that can be argued, each with great validity.  And the tentacles that reach out from Syria, the many dominoes waiting to fall, are just as numerous.  Ultimately, there will be no “right” thing to do; there will only be, at best, the “most appropriate” things to do (or not do).

It may be helpful, just to try to get our arms around this crisis, to break out the subject of Syria into four major subtopics for discussion:

AMERICA AT WAR: Americans are sick of being at war.  Sick of the maiming and killing of so many of our young people.  Sick of all the tax dollars being sucked into these wars and diverted from other badly needed efforts here at home.  And (thankfully) increasingly tired of being the world’s policeman, the place where everyone looks to for leadership and answers, while also being the target of so much anger and resentment in spite of all our sacrifices and “noble efforts.”

The world is rife with tensions, and we are tired of being pulled into seemingly every one of these conflicts.  So in spite of the numbers being killed in Syria, in spite of the humanitarian crush, in spite of the atrocities of petty dictators, most Americans want to pick and choose our involvements far more selectively than in the past.  There is today simply no appetite to fight yet another battle in another far-away ungovernable outpost.  The disastrous ghost of Iraq’s non-existent WMDs looms large.

THE SYRIAN REVOLUTION: Americans are justifiably proud of their biggest gift to the history of civilization: the governance of a major country by a democratic/representative form of government.  We feel it is our duty to spread that concept of democracy across the globe.  Given our own successful revolution needed to establish that freedom and governance, we automatically side with “people’s rebellions” against an autocratic rule.  The “Spirit of 1776” infuses our sympathies.

But this is not 1776.  And Syria (and e.g. Egypt, Iraq, and Libya) is not Colonial America, with an established history of local participatory rule from which to build a democracy.  Democracy is hard, given mankind’s prevailing history, and not everyone is prepared to handle it.  When a violently suppressed or minority people successfully rebels, the swing of the social pendulum can be quite extreme.  Revenge, not democracy, is often the order of the day.  That order can be quite violent itself, whether one speaks of the French Revolution of 1789, or of modern-day Egypt.

Syria is another Afghanistan.  A cruel and despotic government lording over a collection of individual tribes, sects, villages, factions, religious/cultural differences.  Each splinter has its own leaders, its own agenda, its own desired outcomes – which may or may not include democracy for all versus just a new despotic group controlling all others.  Syrian rebels are not Washington’s Continental Army; Syria is a guerilla war with no battle lines and no umbrella war structure.  Regardless of what America might do, there is no guarantee that a post-Assad government will be any better.  We can supply major quantities of humanitarian aid to Syrian communities and their border countries. We can try to help the various rebel factions find “right leaders” and supply the good guys with arms.  But this is not a rebellion we can take on, regardless of the injustices occurring.  We must learn a necessary humility that, even for a “superpower,” some things are simply beyond America’s range and abilities.  The killing will continue in Syria.  There are now in place too many agendas, too many killed already, and far too many motivations for revenge.  Syria will go to the last solder or rebel fighter standing, which may be still years from now.

DIPLOMATIC RESOLUTION: I read of many calls for a “negotiated resolution” rather than American armed intervention, and calls for international diplomatic efforts to squeeze Assad from power.  It leaves me wondering what people think has been going on over the past several years.  Countries have collectively frozen Assad’s assets and instituted economic boycotts and embargoes of goods to his army.  Peace talks have been called for on numerous occasions.  But negotiations require willing and vested partners.

Assad has shown that he is every bit as strong and brutal as his predecessor father.  He looked at the “Arab Spring” revolutions and decided early on to do no negotiations, to slam the door on his protestors.  To stay exactly in his power position and go nowhere else.  And he has partners willing to keep him in power by blocking real international actions: Russia, who provides Syria with arms, trade goods, and funding, while also allowing Vladimir Putin to assert his ego and “stand up to America”; China, who never supports outside intervention in countries’ “internal affairs” lest that same intervention be directed to China’s dictators themselves (e.g. with Tibet); Iran, which is consistently looking to extend its influence across the Middle East.  So keep talking – yes.  Keep maneuvering – yes.  But expect little united action or meaningful negotiation.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS: The Assad regime’s undeniable use of chemical weapons on multiple occasions is an issue totally separate from the Revolution itself.  Chemical weapons, like nuclear weapons, are horrible things capable of mass killing.  Which is why all nations agreed to ban their use after mustard gas killings in World War I.  What has prevented their use over these past 100 years is the understanding that these chemical weapons, like their nuclear counterparts, are too terrible to use, as any such use would invite a reciprocal and escalating attack.  The minute we give implicit sanction to their use, a most dangerous door opens with potentially unimaginable results.  Even Syria’s allies Russia and Iran are squeamish on this war machine escalation, especially as Iran was the victim of Iraq’s use of such weapons during their 1980s war.  So on this issue, the international community must speak up and act.  Regardless of what individual may have actually sent out the order, the community must punish, and severely so, to assure any future Assad, or rogue general, or terrorist that this kind of weaponry is untenable.  (Remember the deadly sarin attack in the Tokyo subway system in 1995 that killed 12 and injured over 5,500?  This is not just a theoretical discussion.)

Complete a thorough United Nations investigation to its scientific conclusion – yes.  Build an action coalition if possible – yes.  But go it alone if necessary to say to others “This time you have gone too far, and you will not go there again” – also yes.  Chemical weapons in the subways of New York City are beyond a nightmare.

In spite of our desire to believe in, and bring out, the inherent good of people, there are simply some people who are willing to do very bad things.  There are some fights we need to pass over and let individuals find their own pathway out.  But there are some fights that can wind up on our own doorstep; those are fights we must stop.  The Syrian Revolution must find its own pathway out, however long and difficult that may be.  A political establishment willing to unleash the horror of chemical war must be stopped – for everyone’s future.

©2013  Randy Bell