Forgot
about the hysteria of an impending U.S. attack on Syria. Forget about
the likely self-congratulatory backslapping by policy makers and the
chanting of, “USA!” by citizens. A U.S. air assault on Syria will not
change anything for the benefit of U.S. interests or even for the
well-being of the Syrian people.
Clearly,
it will not change the regional problems, including the U.S. support
for an Islamist government in Egypt, the unstable Islamist government in
Tunisia, the grim expectations for a “peace process,” the constant
betrayal of the United States by the Turkish government, and the Iranian
nuclear race. But beyond that, it won’t change the Syrian crisis.
Would
the attack determine the outcome of a Syrian civil war, either in favor
of the Iranian backed government or the Islamists favored by the United
States? No. Would it by itself increase the prestige and credibility of
the United States in the Middle East? No.
Let’s
consider the three motives for the potential Syrian attack. One, the
humanitarian motive. After perhaps 100,000 people in Syria have been
killed, this addresses one percent of the casualties (namely those by
chemical weapons). That might be worthwhile but leaves unaddressed the
99 percent of other casualties.
Is
it really true that the Syrian government somewhat, without motive,
used chemical weapons? And finally, is it really humanitarian since the
rebel side is likely to be equally ferocious against minorities and
people it doesn’t like? The humanitarian motive, while sincere, really
doesn’t amount to very much but merely tells the Syrian government the
proper way in which people can be killed.
Second,
what message does America’s potential attack in Syria really send? That
American power, which will be limited, is not going to be sufficient to
change the course of the war. So the United States will not determine
who wins and that, after all, is only thing that everyone is really
interested in.
The
third motive is to send a message to Iran that it won’t be able to
succeed in aggression. But in fact, this too can be said to send the
opposite message: that in the words of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, that
“the United States cannot do a damn thing.”
What
are the possible outcomes of this mission? The Syrian government will
not be overthrown nor saved. The fate of the civil war is going to be
totally outside this operation. Perhaps it will make the outcome more
likely to be a diplomatic one. But again the likelihood that Russia and
Iran will agree to have its client deposed is simply unlikely.
One
could argue that the attack will lead to a lower estimation of American
credibility, since not much will have changed afterward, although this
is not what the media will say. Imagine that the U.S. policy doesn't
even have Britain on board! Obama cannot even line up America''s closest historic partner. How's that for credibility?
It
is interesting to note that in confronting Saddam Hussein, the Clinton
Administration attacked Iraq at least four times in 1998 alone. But of
course Hussein was only overthrown six years later by a controversial
decision by another administration.
What
would the best beneficial outcomes for the Obama Administration be?
First, that Obama will congratulate himself on his daring use of force
and not backing down to anyone. But so what? Aside from the newspaper
headlines and the bounces in public opinion polls, the affect will be
merely psychological and domestic. In friendly capitals, it will only
show that he is willing to support the Sunni Islamists and oppose the
Shia ones. In enemy capitals, there will be derision of the limited
means at Obama’s disposal for affecting events.
What
would be the best outcome for America? That the war will go on long
enough until one side wins and that side will not be the regime. But
basically, the civil war is going to be fought out.
It
might well be said that strategically, it would be better if Iran
didn't win the victory by saving the regime, but frankly, a victory by
radical Islamist rebels and al-Qaida is hardly a bargain. Don’t forget
that in practice, an American intervention would not be on the side of
easing the lot of Syrian civilians but on the side of an extremely
oppressive and unstable future government winning.
In other words, it is not that there are no easy answers but there are no good answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment