Syria-An Impossible Problem

It occurs to me that discussion of a new war, this time in Syria, is a discussion worth having, before the United States commits.  In my opinion, we must recognize quicksand or find ourselves sinking.

Syria is a country in the Middle East. It borders on Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.  The country has been ruled by the Assad family since 1971.  The country is Arab and split politically between Shia and Sunni Muslim sects.  The current leader is Bashar al-Assad who became President at the death of his father, Hafez, in 2000.

The primary allies of Syria and more importantly the supplies of weapons are Iran and Russia.  This is the prologue.

There has been a civil war raging in Syria, not for two years or three, but thirty.  Hafez al-Assad killed as many as 40,000 Syrians in Hama.  In the current crisis, as many as 100,000 citizens have died, and more than 2 million have fled to neighboring countries, causing a regional humanitarian crisis.

If the US intervenes militarily and alone, Iran has already promised reprisal against Israel.  Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and already involved in Syrian fighting, has rocket launchers on the Israeli border.  Syrian has a well equipped air force, capable of attacking the navy ships in the Mediterranean.  If we attack alone we have started this war.  We jeopardize Israel, and damage further the US position as a moral leader in the world. 

On the other hand, if we don't respond to the use of chemical weapons, banned by international treaty for almost 100 years, and updated by 189 countries within the past 10 years, the US appears weak and unwilling to commit to stop use of weapons outlawed internationally.  The actions of the US has implications both at home and abroad.  Both friend and foe alike are waiting to see if the US will act.  Iran, the leading culprit in the Middle East, has a nuclear program which threatens the region.  Pakistan already has nuclear weapons.  Off shoots of Al-Queda are already active in Iraq and in Syria.  Israel will not wait to be attacked if the US fails to do so.  Russia will block any attempt to stop the Assad slaughter in the UN Security Council, and then say the US didn't get international support before acting.  At home, the Republican Party in Congress, traditionally in favor of intervention, has overnight become dovish, out of its continual effort to damage the Obama Presidency.  If Obama intervenes in Syria, the Republicans will attack him: if he doesn't, the Republicans will attack him.

The war in Syria is also civil war.  Some right-wing commentators say that  there is no national security interest in intervention.  The Democrats who are reluctant are balking.  Why step into a civil war? 

So, there is no good answer, militarily.  Over 100,000 people have been murdered by their government in Syria.  Without support from a large international coalition, the humanitarian crisis will continue, and perhaps get worse.  Already, the neighboring countries are being stretched to a breaking point to absorb more refugees.  For instance, 1 in 5 people in Jordan are Syrian refugees.  If on the other hand, the US is unable to gain a coalition, and intervenes with even a minor military action, will we stop the butchery?  No one knows what responses will come from the opposition. 

The conclusion is if we go for humanitarian reasons, we still lose.  If we don't, we still lose.  "No man is an island" said the poet.  "Says who?" said the President.

Thanks for stopping by.