The Prospect of Unilateral US Intervention in Syria

by Digital Producer Omar Baddar

As many of you know by now, the British parliament voted yesterday against authorizing British participation in military action against Syria, setting back Prime Minister David Cameron’s efforts to deliver his country’s support for a possible US strike. This follows Russian and Chinese signals indicating they would veto UN efforts to authorize the use of force against Syria.

Nonetheless, US Secretary of State John Kerry continued to make the case for a possible US strike today. He released a US intelligence report which holds the Assad government in Syria responsible for last week’s chemical attack in a suburb of Damascus which killed, according to the report’s estimate, 1,429 people, including 426 children.

While many analysts consider a US strike on Syria imminent (Aaron David Miller went as far as to publish an article entitled “Obama will bomb Syria”), President Obama insists that he has yet to make a decision. More interestingly, President Obama and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also made clear that any US action won’t aim to topple Assad, emphasizing that “there is not a military solution to that conflict. There has to be a political solution.” This is very different from the attitude in Libya two years ago, where NATO intervention aimed (successfully) to topple Gaddafi’s regime. See the above video where Obama explains the limited scope of any US strike on Syria.

One likely reason for US reluctance to topple the Assad government is the considerable regional cost of such action, given Assad’s possession of chemical weapons and 100,000 missiles and rockets (not to mention Iran and Hezbollah backing), which could wreak havoc across the region if Assad is cornered. Another reason could be reluctance to grant the rebels uncontrolled victory in Syria, given the fact that Al-Qaeda-affiliated elements are among the most successful contingents of the opposition on the ground, and are quick to occupy power vacuums.

But if, as the White House has made clear, there is no military solution, but only a political one to the crisis in Syria, would a US military strike in any way enhance the prospects of that political solution? What kind of signal would we be sending the Assad government if we launched limited strikes while making it clear that we have no interest in deeper involvement? In short, is there a broader strategic objective, or are we considering missiles just for the sake of our credibility given President Obama’s declared “red line” on the use of chemical weapons?

To wrap my head around whether US military action in Syria is a good idea, I asked a few analysts who know a lot about Syria what they thought, and here is what they had to say.

Phyllis Bennis – Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies:

Powerful voices in Congress and beyond are pushing hard for military strikes. The Obama administration has been divided, with President Obama seemingly opposed to any U.S. escalation.  The American people are not divided – 60% oppose intervening in Syria’s civil war even if chemical weapons were involved.

But the situation is changing rapidly, and the Obama administration appears to be moving closer to cruise missile attacks. That would violate U.S. and international law, and make the dire situation in Syria inestimably worse.

UN inspectors are on the ground, but no one knows for sure yet what killed so many Syrian civilians, among them many children. No evidence has been produced proving who is responsible. Whatever the weapon, whoever used it, it is what Secretary Kerry called it – a “moral obscenity.” The perpetrators must be brought to justice.

But we don’t know who did it. So instead of justice – like the International Criminal Court -  we’re hearing that U.S. warships will be in place by Thursday, ready to fire cruise missiles at Syria.  At what targets?  Bashar al-Assad’s house, even if it’s in the middle of heavily populated Damascus? A chemical weapons stockpile that could blow up into a toxic cloud bringing more death and destruction? A U.S. military strike will not protect Syrian civilians, will not help end the war, will not make Americans safer.

Kerry’s claims, including that the Syrian government “waited too long” to allow the inspectors in, are collapsing. Congresswoman Barbara Lee is right: there is no military solution. Instead of military threats, we need to demand serious support for UN inspections, a renewed commitment to diplomacy to end the war, and massive humanitarian assistance.

Hussein Ibish – Weekly Columnist with The National, The Daily Beast, and Now Media:

If the American intervention in Syria is to have a fundamental impact on the nature of that conflict and its outcome, it must be strategic in nature and not tactical and based solely on chemical weapons. For too long the United States has left it to others to define the players and therefore influence the outcome of this decisive struggle. The United States and its Middle Eastern allies have an enormous stake in the outcome in Syria. Therefore any American military action should be linked to a broader effort to change the balance of power on the ground.

The most important asset of the Damascus dictatorship is its air power, and its use of military air bases and landing strips for resupply and communication with its external patrons, particularly Russia and Iran. A campaign to destroy or severely degrade that capability would do more to alter the conflict than any other plausible measure.

This should be coupled with a greatly intensified campaign to bolster the Free Syrian Army, and provide it with the weaponry, intelligence, training and command and control capabilities needed to ensure it is the primary armed opposition movement.  Syrians, and the entire region, are threatened with twin menaces: the Mafia-like regime and Salafist-Jihadists such as Jabhat An-Nusra, both of whom threaten to destroy the country. They must be simultaneously confronted, and the equation on the ground fundamentally altered, if any minimally acceptable outcomes -- even a stable stalemate or a negotiated agreement -- are to be achieved.

Rana Khoury, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University

I oppose western military intervention in the Syrian conflict in practice and in principle, but with the qualifications that a negotiated political settlement must be pursued in its place, and that the conflict is already characterized by the entanglement of foreign powers. In practice, the interests of the intervening powers are entirely strategic (and often sectarian in the case of Middle Eastern countries) and align neither with pressing humanitarian needs nor democratic objectives. The US and its allies are interested in containing and maintaining the conflict at its pre-Ghouta [chemical weapons attack site] status quo, so a strike now will seek to punish Assad without ending the conflict or significantly altering the balance of power.

Such a strike is unlikely to produce the “tipping point” or “bargaining chip” the dominant elements of the Syrian opposition have been hoping for to lead to negotiations. And even a limited strike seriously risks retaliation from Syria, Hezbollah, or Iran on the Syrian people and the US’s regional allies; “limited” can quickly become expansive, and theoretical regional war may well become reality. But perhaps more important than the strategic element are the distorted principles driving the calls for intervention. Continued violence in place of politics bodes ill for Syria’s future. The Assad regime came to power and maintained it through the constant threat and use of force. Following the current trajectory, another government coming into power through force will severely diminish Syria’s chances for representative politics, social equity, and economic justice. After all, I’ve always understood these goals to be the drivers of the uprising—not merely the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. The US can be productive by leading in a political settlement toward a post-Assad Syria and dealing with the dire humanitarian crisis.