I decided to write this article on the the Syrian conflict and the overlapping foreign policy of the U.S. I examined a slew of newspaper articles, opinion papers, and studies to write this article, so I think it would be more appropriate to simply cite an article as I go rather than cite them all here. However, Noah's post was actually far better than most of the articles I read while researching, so I'll put his link at the top.
Just for some historical background, Syria is currently in the midst of a two-and-a-half year civil war. The conflict pits Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and his tightly knit military and secret police apparatus against the loosely organized rebel opposition. The opposition consists of a wide array of factions and organizations. They Range from the Muslim Brotherhood; to the Coalition of Secular and Democratic Syrians; to the Syrian Democratic People's Party (a socialist party); to the Al-Nursa Front (an Al-Qaeda associate); to many other local factions and organizations. The Syrian rebels aren't always as righteous as some in our media proclaim. Nor are they a homogeneous entity with unified goals.
Those who like to condemn Assad like to also forget that some, if not a majority, of the belligerents opposing Assad are just as ruthless as he. One of the major differences - and most likely the cause of Assad's greater casualty infliction count - is the Regime has access to sophisticated weapons and the rebels don't. At least some of the rebels, particularly the ones affiliated with terrorist organizations, would be more than happy to use chemical weapons if they could get their hands on them. This article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages is guilty of only showing one side of the conflict, so is this article from the 'Washington Post'. It is important to evaluate the belligerents of a conflict when contemplating involvement in such conflict.
The article from the 'New York Times' editorial pages also seems to be relying on the idea that there are only two real choices in this matter. Which is not only fallacious but also an egregiously representative statement. There are many different options and even more consequences in this scenario. I will expand on this False Dichotomy in another paragraph.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am not throwing in my support for Assad. Given only two choices: one being to aid Assad, the other being to aid the rebels, I would choose to aid the rebels. Luckily we are not forced between those two choices because both of them are horrible. Assad's regime is guilty of near-countless atrocities. Even without the civil war in mind, the Assad regime is one of the worst in the world. Prior to the civil war, The Assad regime was condemned by humanitarian organizations such as Amnesty International for its poor human rights record. It often imprisoned those who spoke out against the Assad regime and used the military to back it.
During the Syrian Civil War, the Syrian Government has on multiple occasions used chemical weapons in the form of Sarin gas to further their cause. I say government because there is some dispute as to whether Assad himself approved of the use of chemical weapons. This article questions the assumption that Assad himself was responsible.
The government of Russia outright denies the allegation that Syria even used chemical weapons and instead blames the rebels. Russia may not be totally sincere in its accusation. Russia currently is the only country on the U.N. security council that is allied with Syria. Their veto is keeping some countries from potential military action against the Assad regime. If they deny the allegations condemning Syria of using chemical warfare, then they have a more defensible position to cast their veto power from. As for the reason Russian supports Syria, Russia, along with the U.S., is the largest exporter or arms and munitions in the world. One of Russia's largest clients happens to be Syria, and by extension the Assad regime. A successful war against Syria would be extremely detrimental towards the long term economic position of Russian arms exports.
Despite the conflicted validity as to whether or not Assad personally ordered chemical weapons, he nevertheless is still responsible for mass amounts of loss of life. Two-and-a-half years ago, when this debacle first started, it was Assad who ordered peaceful protesters to be fired upon. Therefore he started the war. He was the original aggressor.
Of the over 110,000 likely deaths that have occurred in this conflict, over 75% have been civilian, oppositions forces, or militia. This shows two things: one being that the overall death toll is incredibly high for a country with a population of 22 million, second being that the Assad Regime is clearly winning the fight. The second point is alarming because this makes the act of using chemical weapons even more nefarious because the government did so willingly and for expedience, not out of necessity.
In addition to the death toll, there is hundreds-of-thousands more who were wounded in the conflict. There is millions of refugees in the surrounding countries who have fled from Syria because of the conflict. Furthermore, there has been thousands of prisoners taken by either the Assad regime or the Rebels who were tortured and inhumanely imprisoned. The overall refugee export of Syria has had a destabilizing effect on the region. Countries such as Jordan or Turkey now have to make accommodations for hundreds-of-thousands of refugees. It's like if the amount of immigrants coming into the U.S. increased, overnight, twentyfold.
Now, on to the matter at hand. As I've stated prior, I think the way the media has narrowed down our options is a False Dichotomy. On the one hand we could do nothing, and on the other we could launch missiles and airstrikes at the Assad regime. To me, it seems as though there are a slew of options in between and a couple at the more proactive end that the media has not even dared touch.
We could (and I'm not advocating this) invade Syria and install a friendly 'democratic' government. The benefit of this idea is we possibly could get an ally in the region and there isn't any instability after Assad's death. However, the power vacuum would have to be filled with U.S. soldiers. The major downsides to this solution is the cost and loss of life. We have learned from experience that this idea doesn't work. In both Iraq and Vietnam we had a similar plan and failed miserably. Based on estimates from the Iraq war, we would need roughly 600,000 soldiers to complete this plan effectively. That would drag this country further into an already substantial debt and would overall not be good.
Another possible route is that we attack Syria in a limited way. We aid the rebels when we can and takeout major military installations with our bombers and missiles. We provide support but don't commit actual ground forces to the conflict. President Obama promotes this policy.
Many, including Noah, have compared this policy to the one used in the Libyan conflict a couple years ago. However the parallel between Libya and Syria, and their respective civil wars, is non-existent. They are two different conflicts, both in quality and quantity. For one, in Libya U.N. approval was achieved quickly and without any real pressure from the U.S. We had many different nations on our side who were willing to act on their own accord. This gave some minor amounts of international legitimacy.
Secondly, the two conflicts entail a vastly different amount of soldiers and causalities. In Libya, the government had an army of about 20,000 regular soldiers plus another 10,000 militia. These soldiers, though well trained, were up against an army of 200,000 volunteers. These 200,000 volunteers were well armed and included a number of Army deserters. The volunteers were also relatively well organized and homogeneous in their goals. However, in Syria, the government has an army of 170,000 soldiers including 80,000 regulars. The Syrian opposition's 60,000 man army is also made up of dozens of different factions. My point being Syria is completely a different kind of conflict than Libya was.
As a third minor point for the differences between the two conflicts, Libya is relatively isolated whereas Syria is not. Meaning Libyan instability doesn't spread as easily as Syrian instability.
If we were to launch airborne forces into Syria there would no doubt be high amounts of civilian causalities as a result. Assad might even lash out against Israel or Saudi Arabia (our allies in the area) and now we've only exacerbated the problem. My point being is there doesn't seem to be a plan for all of these what if situations. It appears the reserved military strike on Syria isn't well thought out. Just judging from what I know of the situation a military strike doesn't seem to solve any problems. It only causes more.
Beyond the strike itself, even if the Syrian government were to capitulate, our problems in Syria would still exist - perhaps even more so. The reason comes from the fact that the opposition in Syria is incredibly diverse. If and when the Assad regime topples there will most likely be a power struggle. Lack of any dominant military presence in the area will create a power vacuum. Within this vacuum there will be a great amount of civilian deaths and destruction. So, by toppling the Assad regime we may only breed more discord.
All-in-all I think the idea to use a limited strike against Syria may at first seem ideal, though upon further rumination it is just as bad as the first idea.
A third possible solution (still not the one I promote) is one involving complete isolation. I think Noah did a more than adequate job refuting this argument in his article. Most people in America are against a strike against Syria, as detailed here. However, I think most of the people have just taken a hefty dosage of international apathy to counteract the Iraq War.
A fourth and final solution is one with no downsides, though it doesn't fix all problems. We should take a non-military active approach to this scenario. Meaning we provide generous humanitarian aid to the refugees outside - and civilians within - Syria. Granted this won't end the conflict, but it also doesn't risk exacerbating the conflict further. We won't risk another Iraq, yet we won't completely ignore the conflict. This will also help curb our governments constant need to be involved in a military expedition. Read this article if you want to read an analysis of the overuse of presidential war making powers, and a critic of the false dichotomy I mentioned earlier. All-in-all not many pros in this idea it is just the lack of cons that make me in favor of this.
If you have a better idea, want me to disambiguate something, or wish to dispute something, please feel free to leave comments.
It would be unnecessarily stubborn of me to try to refute this. My position has been swayed. Frankly, I was ignorant to many of the facts, numerical and logistical, especially the ones about Libya and I hadn’t even considered the lack of homogeny within the rebellion.
ReplyDeleteI would, however, like to add to the list of tensions what, in my mind, is a major factor: religion. The majority of Syria is Muslim, but, like American Christianity, there are several key sects within the country. The majority of Syrians, to the tune of nearly 70 percent, are Sunni Muslim. The ruling classes, including Assad, are predominantly Shia Muslim, and more specifically, Alawites, which are break-offs from Shia Islam. The Alawites, as a result, have been much more privileged than the Sunnis, who, also as a result, have harbored hateful feelings toward the Alawites. The Alawites fear Sunni vengeances if the Assad regime is to fall, so some of the actions regarding the use of chemical munitions may be explained by an eagerness to prevent Sunni backlash. Also, several thousand Hezbollah fighters joined the ranks of Assad, which can be explained by the fact that Hezbollah is also Shia Muslim and the fact that they view Syria as the appropriate anti-American and therefore anti-Zion faction to side with.
I do have a question for you though (please, to all those reading this, remember that questions form opinions more than they manifest opinions, which is to say, just because I ask this doesn’t mean it defines my overall opinion). I do, now at least, agree that blind military strikes have the potential to aggravate the situation more than they would solve it; but, in several articles I have read (don’t ask me to tell you which ones because I have forgotten which I know is a bad thing most of the time) the point about Syria as an example as been raised. The argument is that Syria’s use of chemical weaponry isn’t as much about the direct threat it posses to American and its allies, but the threat of the precedent it sets if the U.S. doesn’t act now on the violation of the terms set in the Geneva Convention, and that other nations will be emboldened by American apathy. I feel that this has merit, and the precedent to WWII is a good example of this, when the League of Nations failed to adequately act on Japan’s imperialistic actions.
If the emboldening does in fact take place then America may have a bigger problem than Syria to deal with. So my question is this: how does America simultaneously address the concern of aggravating Syria while still preventing the future use of Sarin by other nations? If my memory serves me well this is a point that the President has considered in advocating a limited involvement policy. Your solution is an excellent one, but I feel it could be improved by addressing this issue as well. I do, however, appreciate the fact that if America was to follow through with your proposed solution and on a large enough scale, it would set an unprecedented example to the world. The world’s foremost superpower would be using its immense stock of assets to oppose the inhumanities of the conflict peacefully before it utilized its also immense stock of militant assets. Like I said it would have to be on a large enough scale (most likely comparable to a full scale invasion) for the example to be fully realized, but the implications that America has realized from peaceful protest would begin to take effect globally.
ReplyDeleteOf course that’s immensely idealistic but we all need ideals to shoot for, right?
Now, correct me if I'm wrong; but, in sum, your point (or question rather) is the Geneva Protocol (the Geneva Convention is slightly different) has made chemical weapons 'illegal' because they are inhumane and kill indiscriminately. Because they are inhumane, it up to us humans to put a stop to any party using these weapons.
ReplyDeleteThe Geneva Protocol was ratified in 1925 and, at least with regards to the use of chemical weapons, has remained stagnant in its declarations since. The definition of what is 'human' and therefore what is 'humane' has also remained stagnant since at least that date. So, ideally our reaction to the use chemical weapons over this period should be uniform. That is, it should be consistent.
Now, I understand the logic aforementioned only applies totally in the ideal world. Sometimes countries have to be pragmatic. But, even considering that required pragmatism, a country should never do something diametrically opposite to what it supports ideally.
Our country has done just about that. In the Iraq-Iran war in the seventies, our country supported Iraq. We knew full well that Iraq possessed and used chemical weapons against Iranians yet continued to support Saddam's regime. In Vietnam, we developed an herbicide by the name of Agent Orange. This herbicide; though intended to kill forests, thus depriving the Viet-Cong of their cover and support form peasant farmers; actually was incredibly harmful to the humans who contacted the chemical compound. 400,000 people were maimed or killed and another 400,000 children were born with birth defects. Though the U.S. government does, of course, dispute those numbers.
So, the idea we as humans are required to retaliate against countries guilty of chemical weapons, that idea, doesn't yet have a precedent. Now, I agree that countries shouldn't use chemical weapons and something (sanctions, embargoes, ect) should be done about it. It wouldn't be prudent currently to start enforcing this Ideology, especially when our hypocrisy is so near in the past.
Yes that is the general idea of my question. Oh, yes . . . Geneva Protocol. You caught me there; I’m not going to deny my total ignorance on the subject. But you understood what I meant.
ReplyDeleteI also understand that American foreign policy has been . . . shifty (in its most generous description). There are a couple of points I would like to raise. The first is that like we learned about in class our system of representation relies on alternate interests to keep the system in check and to protect minority rights. A side effect of alternate interests and the subjugation by majority is that, by nature, alternate interests will come and go from power. This means that our nation never really has one uniform foreign policy. About a hundred years ago (not that long considering the lifespan of nations) we were quasi-Imperialists and now we are having a serious debate over whether or not we should be involved in conflicts where human rights are being violated. This shows a considerable amount of flux.
I think it is dangerous to ignore our past action and not take their consequences into account when making future choices, but I also think we ought not to let fear of hypocrisy prevent us from changing our behavior. Hypocrisy is only hypocrisy if behavior remains unchanged; I am suggesting that Syria has the potential to be the first American step to change toward really being a caring society and one that treats the rest of the world with the same equality we fight so hard to obtain domestically.
In Vladimir Putin’s recent appeal to the American people he warns the United States to refrain from thinking itself exceptional. I agree and disagree with him. There is nothing wrong with being exceptional, but when a nation regards itself to be superior to the rest of the world and especially when it regards itself to be superior to the rest of humanity, that directly sublimates into arrogance, and there is a certain amount of blindness and ignorance that comes with arrogance. These are fatal vices. The only remedy is an equal eye domestically as much internationally, but that is beside the point.
This is all to argue that, as I have said previously, we have responsibility on the global front, and part of what does make Americans exceptional is the acknowledgment of that responsibility. What America has yet to realize is that it isn’t Americans that are exceptional but humanity, and that the only difference between the United States and the rest of the world is that no one else enjoys quite the same conduit for our inherent exception. Understanding that and understanding how sometimes American action hasn't reflected that fact, there has to be that initial ideal push that moves U.S. foreign policy in the right direction.
Remember in all of this that ideally the whole world would be unified in one society and all enjoy equal liberties, which is to say that the whole world would be unified with no government and no need for one. Realistically, that will never happen, but I see the world moving closer and closer to that goal, more so than it ever has. We enjoy the expeditiousness of modern technology which has unified the world on a scale never before seen. As the world moves closer and closer together so does the ability to move closer and closer to and ideal world, and as the country closest to that ideal we have a responsibility to make that push, whatever the method may be (and I do understand that in all of this that is the real debate).
ReplyDeleteOnce again, my ignorance is being admitted with regards to Iran-Iraq and it seems that our stance was pretty flip-floppity with regards to the long run, but Agent Orange in Vietnam wasn’t being utilized consciously as an inhumane weapon. Lots of the side effects were discovered later, and I’m fairly certain that, since it was also dropped on our soldiers, it wasn’t being used in moral ambiguity let alone in conscious malice, so the American use of Agent Orange isn’t analogous to the Syrian use of Sarin.
Precedents in action really shouldn’t be a stumbling block. Our nation has a history of making all kinds of unprecedented actions. I will acknowledge in all of my idealism I haven’t been able to reconcile the realism of humanity and ethnocentrism, but I also don’t think that we are as stupid as we give our selves credit for sometimes. There is certainly a solution that combines all of the desired outcomes: a lack of ethnocentric imposition, the prevention of future Sarin usage, and the ability to act peacefully before acting violently.
I should say that most of this was written for external readers. I understand that you don’t need me lecturing you on this stuff, Ethan, and I acknowledge that my idealism could be cluttering any real and efficient conclusions. If I have misunderstood anything you said or if I have been blatantly idiotic, then don’t spare my feelings; give me a good rebuff, a nice intellectual beating. I can take it, and worse case scenario, I’ve learned something.
I will reply to your post but I'm short on time, so its going to have to be quick.
ReplyDeleteUltimately the reason we should not target Syrian chemical weapons is two-fold. One, from a practical stand point, there has been no reason that this conflict is any different than other conflicts involving indiscriminate killing. We didn't get involved in those conflicts, so there is no precedent to get involved in this one. And Ideologically, the reason chemical weapons are banned is because they kill indiscriminately. So from the Ideologically perspective, to assault a country possessing chemical weapons, thus risking more lives killed indiscriminately, would by very definition be hypocritical. We would risk doing the thing we abhor. It doesn't do anyone any good defending the Ideological high ground by breaking the basis for that high ground.
Ethan, I'm pleased with your research efforts to back you multiple views and opinions, as well as Noah. However, In your last paragraph you seem to go against what you wrote in the first sentence throughout the rest of the paragraph.
ReplyDeleteYou claim, "A fourth and final solution is one with no downsides, though it doesn't fix all the problems." If a solution has no downsides, then it must surely fix all the problems resolving a conflict. No solution to the Syrian Government's disturbing behavior will solve everything, or even anything. Any solution will have downsides no matter what. I personally believe and am favor of intense, strategic, and serious military action against Syria.
I have a hard time understanding how giving aid to those who are displaced, will do anything to hold back the corrupt police forces and rebels when they don't care about food aid cause they will probably just continue to steal or get food by means of their own way. Giving food aid will only help the many random and needy poor common people, not the powerful and evil.
I think of a garden, where many spiders live, webbing their webs and catching bugs. Well, if a gardener comes along and starts destroying the plants, misplacing the spiders and their lovely web homes and we want to preserve the spiders. We must stop the gardener from destroying the homes of the innocent spiders. Giving food aid to the people in Syria is like dropping ants and flies into the remaining spider webs left in the garden. Feeding the hungry spiders has nothing to do with stopping the gardener from wreaking havoc.
We must stop the corrupt government of Syria. Just like North Korea's crazy threats of rocket launches, we must take them seriously and defend ourselves because if we sat back and brushed Kim Jong Un's threats off our shoulders, than that would bolster their actions and they would be more inclined to attack if the U.S. is going to appear weak and say oh those "crazy Asians." Why not take Syria seriously? Letting them continue their genocides and such with no intervention serious enough to oppress them than they will continue to hurt their own people, and spread their acts further. We must police them and control them, just cause the American people who live comfortably in their homes with plenty of food and such don't want to be involved in Syria, doesn't mean we should completely listen to them when they don't even know that Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing!
The Arab 22 League of Nations and many other countries are and were in support of the U.S. intervening with Military action, as am I.
Now, this won't be solved anytime soon, and I know my views are fractured but I am easily persuaded by accurate evidence if a have mistakenly written.