McCain Calls for Bombing Bashar al-Assad's Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 10, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

              Playing commander-in-chief, 76-year-old Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called on President Barack Obama to start bombing Syria to end President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown of rebels causing hundreds of deaths since the uprising began Jan. 26, 2011.  Less than two weeks after Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali was forced from power Jan. 14, 2011, insurgents rioted in Damascus, prompting Assad to order the violent crackdown that has killed hundreds of civilians.  Only weeks later, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was driven from Cairo in what became known as the “Arab Spring,” where liberation’ movements prevailed over longstanding dictators.  Now McCain wants the same outcome in Syria, where the 46-year-old son of former Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad clings to power.  Instead of bargaining with opposition groups, Assad chose violent repression.

             McCain’s call to rush to the aid of largely Sunni opposition groups fails to see the big picture of what Syria would look like after the revolution.  Whether admitted to or not by the Obama administration or past one of former President George W. Bush, the war in Iraq empowered a Shiite majority with close ties to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  Instead of having a government more friendly to the U.S., $1 trillion and 4,4000 deaths have left Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the hands of the U.S.’s most viral enemy:  Iran.  Whatever the misgivings about Saddam Hussein, he was easier to manage than Shiite radicals now controlling Iran.  With Khamenei’s mouthpiece, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in charge, the U.S. faces some tough choices with Iran, especially with Israel threatening air strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.  Hoping to hold off Israel, McCain’s timing could not be worse.

             Ending the Iraq War Dec. 15, 2011, Obama isn’t in the mood to start a new war in Syria, especially knowing the outcome in Iraq.  “The ultimate goal of air strikes should be to establish and defend safe havens in Syria, especially in the North, in which opposition forces can organize and plan their political and military activities against Assad,” said McCain, knowing nothing about so-called opposition forces.  McCain knows that Assad’s Shiite minority rule keeps radical Sunni groups like al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold in Syria.  Before the U.S. commits to getting rid of Assad, they’d better have some assurances that the regime to follow wouldn’t be more radical and sympathetic to Islamic revolution.  When Libyan opposition groups began rioting Feb. 17, 2011, it took the U.S. months before they had enough assurances to support toppling Muammar Gadhaffi.

             When Libyan insurgents with U.S. and U.N. help finally toppled and killed Gadaffi Oct. 20, 2011, no one really knew what kind of government would emerge.  All indications point to a new Islamic regime unfriendly to U.S. interests.  How the Libyan situation ends up is anyone’s guess.  With tens-of-thousands thousands of disgruntled Palestinains and other displaced Sunni groups in Syria, there’s no certainty the next government will be friendly to the U.S.  McCain wants the bombing to weaken the Syrian army to provide “relief from Assad’s tank and artillery sieges in the many cities that are still contested.”  McCain doesn’t know the composition of opposition groups seeking to oust Assad.  With U.S. troops still dying in Afghanistan and problems brewing in Iran, opening up a Syrian front and contending with the dicey political fallout would be risky and premature.

             Whatever thorn Assad has been supporting terror groups in Lebanon and Gaza, empowering more terror groups in Syria makes no sense.  Before the knee-jerk to inject U.S. forces in no-win situations, Obama must study all other international options, including new diplomatic initiatives.  Former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has been sent by the U.N. as a peace envoy to try to broker a ceasefire.  Whether his mission fails or not, the U.S. can’t start bombing sovereign nations without some serious national security rationale.  Because the civil war in Syria does not meeting national security priority, it’s preferable for the U.S. to work through the U.N. Security Council.  Unilateral action is needed when compelling national security risks require the U.S. to act in its own defense.  As bad as the civil war is in Syria, it doesn’t directly impact U.S. national security.

             McCain’s plan to bomb Syrian forces to establish a no-fly zone in the North to aid rebels is both ill-advised and premature.  U.S. intel must know much more about to whom Assad’s Syria would go after toppling the dictator.  Like Saddam, Assad’s grip on power currently keeps radical Sunni groups at bay.  Opening the floodgates for al-Qaeda or  other radical groups would invite more extremism, causing headaches for the U.S. and Israel.  “I believe there are ways to get weapons to the opposition without direct United States involvement,” said McCain, ignoring the very real possibility that he would wind up arming radicals, harming U.S. interests.  Whatever atrocities currently happen in Syria, it’s not only the U.S.’s job to control regional violence and anarchy.  Instead of starting a new front, Obama should work toward ending the Afghan War before considering new adventures.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.       

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.