The
Drumbeat For An International War In Syria Is Building
Dan
Murphy, The Christian Science Monitor
14
June, 2012
Yesterday
afternoon CNN aired
a series of heartbreaking images from Syria:
Gruesome close-ups of toddlers alleged to have been killed by forces
loyal to President
Bashar al-Assad.
I
looked up from my desk, and a wave of nausea and anger washed over me
as a I saw the body of a little girl in a party dress. The images
were twinned
to a UN report that
alleges 1,000 children were killed in Syria last year, largely by the
regime, and that kids had also been subjected to sexual assaults and
torture by security forces.
But
then I started thinking. How often had I seen on CNN the
broken bodies of children killed in Iraq during
the US occupation,
or by NATO airstrikes
in Afghanistan,
or by drone strikes in Pakistan?
The answer I came up with from my own recollections was "never."
I asked around the newsroom, and most folks there agreed.
The
point is not to draw equivalencies, but simply to point out the
implied argument made by the unusual choice to show these murdered
kids: A special horror is unfolding in Syria, and the world (read,
the US) must do something to stop it.
Perhaps
the world should. But far less explored are the practicalities of
military intervention, the risks that horrors as great or greater
await by widening Syria's
civil war into
an international conflict. For now, a simple narrative is being spun
of a depraved Assad and his helpless victims. Serving that cause
yesterday were claims from Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton that Russia was
rushing deliveries of attack helicopters to Assad's army "which
will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."
Russia
is denying
that claim, saying
it's only repairing MI-24 (Hind) gunships which were sold to Bashar
al-Assad's father, Hafez, more than a decade ago. Either way, such
helicopters would be more useful for fighting the Free
Syrian Army or
other armed rebel groups than targeting civilians. Syria has
thousands of tanks, mortars, and artillery pieces and 600,000
soldiers who are the main threat to civilian population centers.
So
if you were for, or against, going to war with Syria before the
claims were made about the helicopters, your thinking shouldn't be
shifted. And make no mistake, the longer Syria's war goes on, the
greater the likelihood that President Assad will follow in his
father's footsteps with a truly horrific massacre. In 1982, Assad the
elder had at least 10,000 residents of the city of Hama killed in an
atrocity that ended an Islamist uprising against
his Baath regime.
In
the US, there are surprising signs of support for a US intervention.
A Monitor/TIPP poll conducted from June 1 to June 8 found that 15
percent of Americans think the US should "take the lead" in
a military intervention in Syria and that 19 percent think the US
should "lead from behind encouraging and bolstering military
action by many countries but not driving it." The poll's margin
of error was plus/minus 3.3 percentage points
.
While
the most popular answers were the US should not get involved
militarily (29 percent) or only if "no ground campaign is
involved" (27 percent), it's surprising that 34 percent of
Americans are willing to consider a direct military engagement in
another Middle Eastern country when the war in Iraq just ended and
the war in Afghanistan continues. More atrocities in Syria will
surely tip the needle closer to public support.
Many
opinion makers are pushing for a US-initiated invasion as soon as
possible, from the neocon John
Bolton to
the influential columnist and liberal interventionist Nick Kristof.
Mr. Kristof offers an emotion-laden, moralistic call
to arms over
Syria (and Sudan)
while ignoring the uncomfortable question of whether that really
serves American interests.
The
reliably hawkish Mr. Bolton at least tries to make the case.
He argues
in a piece for the National Review this
week that President
Barack Obama should
ignore the concerns of some that unilateral action could put the US
at loggerheads with Russia, and undermine whatever slim hopes that
negotiations with Iran (another
key backer of Mr. Assad) over its nuclear program could succeed. In
fact, he seems to relish the prospect.
First,
he regrets that President
George W. Bush didn't
extend the war in Iraq to Syria in 2003. He writes: "In the days
just after Saddam’s ouster in 2003, conditions were optimal (if
nonetheless imperfect) for overthrowing Assad and replacing his
regime with something compatible with American interests."
Then
he asserts that since Syria is close to Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah in Lebanon that
"regime change in Syria is prima facie in America’s interest,
as well as the interests of Israel and
our Arab friends in the region."
Then
he suggest a broader conflict might be a good idea: "Significantly,
US intervention could not be confined to Syria and would inevitably
entail confronting Iran and possibly Russia," he writes. "This
the Obama administration is unwilling to do, although it should."
Does
he remember what happened the last time he successfully led the
charge for a US-led war in the Middle
East?
Saddam
Hussein was among the most vicious tyrants of the last half of the
twentieth century, which is saying something. Bolton and others
pushed hard for a war they promised would be quick and cheap and
would transform Iraq into a prosperous bastion of democracy that
would serve as a beacon for the region. Instead, half a million
Iraqis died as the country became a magnet for Al
Qaeda-style
jihaddis and a sectarian civil war broke out that tens of thousands
of US troops could do little to contain. The cost to the US was
somewhere north of $1 trillion, not to mention the nearly 5,000 US
soldiers who died and countless more who lost their health and limbs.
Today,
violence is far down from the peak of the war, but terrorism is a
sort of background radiation seeded there by the war and that
continues to ooze through the Iraqi nation. Today's
sectarian car-bomb attacks against
Shiite pilgrims in at least four different Iraqi cities, which killed
at least 65 people, are just the latest outrage. The US government
estimates that 13,600 people were killed in terrorist attacks in Iraq
in 2007. Last year, that number dropped to 3,063, but that was still
high enough to place Iraq second, after Afghanistan, in
the annual terrorism death toll.
The
Iraqi central government remains split between hostile Shiite and
Sunni factions. Basic service delivery such as medical care and
electricity remains poor. Corruption and torture by the police and
politically motivated prosecutions remain commonplace.
Between one-half
and two-thirds of Iraq's ancient Christian community have
been driven out of the country since 2003. And a regime that was a
staunch opponent of Iran (the country that Bolton promises will
inevitably need to be confronted in the event of war in Syria) has
been replaced with one that is friendly to it.
And
while the violence unfolding in Syria is heart-wrenching, it isn't
currently directed at the US. The Iraq war drew in jihadis from
around the Middle East, eager to kill US soldiers in the name of
Islam. Hundreds of Sunni jihadis have
already entered Syria
from the Middle East and South
Asia to
fight Assad's Alawite dominated regime. The Alawites are an offshoot
of Shiite Islam that Sunni jihadis view as apostates, and they're
eager to replace the Baath regime with an Islamic caliphate, just
like the one they foolishly believed they could impose on Iraq. US
boots on the ground and supporters of Al Qaeda have traditionally
been a volatile combination.
A
US-led effort to oust Assad? If the US made it a priority, there is
little doubt that could be accomplished relatively quickly (just as
in the case of Saddam
Hussein).
What comes next? Just as unpredictable and dangerous.
You'd
have to have a heart of stone not to feel for the Syrian people or
ponder a righteous war to save the country from more pain. But sound
decisions aren't made from emotion. And actions from the best of
intentions can sometimes lead to outcomes as grim or grimmer than any
now currently imagined.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.