Are they or aren't they? And who is they - the government or the rebels? The only known known, as Donald Rumsfeld would eloquently put it, is that the mess in Syria is turning into a quagmire.
Rumblings of chemical WMD use in the Syrian conflict are not new. New images seem to strongly suggest that conventional weapons are not solely in play. Moreover, American intelligence affirms this position and indicates that sarin has been used, but on a small scale (Syria denies this American "lie"). Unfortunately, as with previous evidence, it doesn't seem that any country, with the United States in particular, is really willing to do anything about it other than utilize euphemisms for further investigation and delayed action. In a sense, the United States is saying that there's evidence, but not clear-cut proof. Figure that?
It seems that the line in the sand, which seemed so clear in the past based on American statements, has blurred with the wind. Given recent history and even considering older military history (dating as far back as World War I), the United States is visibly shaken by the potential problems of confronting chemical weapons militarily. While those weapons pose significant threat to Americans, putting soldiers on the ground to eliminate them seems to be a line in itself. It seems doubtful that in all this time, no special force has been organized and trained to tackle such an obvious concern.
Despite all this, it is time to take a position, whether it be showing force (regional deployment) or showing presence (drones). Something must be done. Or will the world stand by as another civil war drags months into years and death and destruction into the everyday? Just in the past few decades, the world watched Somalia, Congo, and Yugoslavia - do we really need another example? Where are the massive protests about inaction? Where is the public outcry? It seems that the Syrian conflict's human toll has gone overlooked in the face of political calculations.
It's important to remember that sometimes the war we try to avoid is the war that drags us in. Perhaps we can truly preempt such a calamity by taking a stance now and beginning to end the madness.
While the atrocities in Syria increase, pressure certainly mounts for someone to "do something." Inaction is increasingly inappropriate, but the type of action the U.S. takes is just as important as the decision to act.
ReplyDeleteOne problem the U.S. has had with arming and supporting the rebels has been the rise of the Islamists. As the Washington Post pointed out last month, Jabhat al-Nusra -- an Islamic group designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization -- has become the best-organized Syrian rebel group both in terms of fighting and providing for the civilians (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/islamic-law-comes-to-rebel-held-syria/2013/03/19/b310532e-90af-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_print.html). The U.S. must recognize that, regardless of whether it's deserved, Jabhat al-Nusra may well enjoy a great deal of popularity in a post-Assad Syria -- the type of popularity that could translate to electoral victories. The U.S. cannot dictate to free countries what type of post-war government should take place, yet at the same time Syria contains significant minority groups (for example, a 10% Christian minority) which warrant protection but might not have such protection guaranteed by an Islamist government.
None of this is to suggest that intervention or non-intervention is the right course. Still, these questions must be raised before -- not after -- a decision is made on direct U.S. military action in Syria.
As a reflection, an important factor is the impact that the revolution in Egypt and the post-revolutionary status of its Islamist parties as related to its significant minorities has had and will have.
ReplyDelete