|
U.S. Military Intervention in Syria a Bad Idea
by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700
Copyright
April 28, 2013 All Rights Reserved.
Proving that
he understands the consequences of U.S. military intervention, President Barack
Obama beat back his critics from the left and right calling for tougher action
in Syria. While calling the possible
use of sarin nerve gas a “game changer,” Barack didn’t satisfy hawks calling for
bombing Bashar al-Assad’s Baathist regime. Toppling
Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime April 10, 2003, former President George W. Bush
found out the hard way the real costs of U.S. military intervention. While “Shock-and-Awe” hit with a bang
March 20, 2003, 10 years later Iraq’s U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki
still faces nearly daily suicide bombing and political instability. Trying out democracy on the Mideast’s
Arab governments hasn’t panned out as Bush wanted. Opening up his presidential library
April 25 at Southern Methodist
University in Dallas Texas, Bush will have a hard time justifying controversial
decisions and revising history.
Calls now for
Obama to make the same mistake of using the U.S. military as a global policing
force or worse yet nation-building continue to present challenges in the wake of
the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings. Reactions
in the Middle East to Boston’s terrorism tell the story of what the White House
should do in Syria. When terrorist
bombs struck Boston, many Mideast capitals jumped –for-joy in the streets. While no one likes to see al-Assad
bomb or gas his own people, foreign governments also recognize his right to
defend his sovereignty against foreign and domestic invaders. State Department officials still
haven’t figured out who’s behind the insurgency in Syria. Multiple reports suggest that the same
Saudi-financed radical Wahhabi Suni groups that battled the Soviets in
Afghanistan and the U.S. in Iraq lead the insurgency against al-Assad. Bombing al-Assad could turn Syria over
to radical Islamist group loyal to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Dealing with radical
Islamist elements along the Turkey-Syria border, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan warned against U.S. military intervention. As much as Jordan’s King Hussein or
Erdogan support U.S. foreign policy, they oppose U.S. military action in Syria
because it radicalizes local populations. “The
international community, and especially the people of the Middle East, have lost
confidence in any report which argues that there are weapons of mass destruction
or chemical weapons,” said an anonymous source connected to the Ankara
government. Journalists working on
the front lines dealing with al-Assad’s bombings of rebel factions in civilian
areas would like to see the carnage stop. But
if the U.S. topples al-Assad’s regime, the potential for more extremism grows
dramatically. No one, especially
today’s besieged villages, has a clue of what a post-al-Assad Syria would look
like, especially with a radical Islamic takeover.
Since the
civil war started March 11, 2011, the International Red Cross estimates that
over 70,000 Syrian civilians have died in collateral damage. Most experts at Amnesty International,
Human Rights Watch and other global antiwar groups blame the U.S. for thousands
of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. “There
is always a risk of creating more destruction and creating a failed state in
Syria . . . This is happening next door. The
flames are reaching us, starting to burn us, where they can’t reach the United
States, Qatar, or the U.K.,” said the unnamed Turkish official. Boston’s terrorist attack in fact
took, a many observed in the Mideast, to the jihad into American streets. U.S. counterterrorism officials are
trying to figure out how to prevent the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Before intervening in Syria, the White
House wants to know that any attack wouldn’t aid-and-abet al-Qaeda now fighting
along side Syrian rebels
If Obama
looks more nuanced in his “game changer” comments, it’s precisely because the U.S. finds
itself caught between a rock-and-a-hard=place in Syria. U.S. strategic partners Russia and
China oppose any U.S. intervention because both believe it will destabilize the
region. Apart from trading
partnership with al-Assad, Russia, China and the White House, see toppling
al-Assad a a prelude to radicalization. “A
major chemical attack would outrage the Arab and Muslim world . . . It would be
difficult just to watch, then everyone would intervene,” said former Jordanian
air force Gen. Mamoum Abu Nowar. While
it’s easy to talk about arm chair military action, the U.S.—not Turkey or
Jordan—would bear the messy burden of bombing al-Assad and then worrying about
the chaos would follow, including setting up some type of law-and-order after
toppling al-Assad. Without putting
boots on the ground, Syria would rapidly descend into anarchy.
Barack’s nuanced position about “red
lines” if al-Assad really used sarin nerve gas involves the consequences of
toppling al-Assad. If Obama followed
ranking Senate Armed Services member Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) advice, or
that of former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, he’d have to prepare
for a major commitment of U.S. troops to keep Syria from becoming the next
Iraq. Before toppling Saddam, Iraq
was not a breeding ground for Wahhabi terrorists. If al-Assad goes, the same power
vacuum in Syria would open up the floodgates of Islamic terrorists in Syria, now
held in check by al-Assad’s Baathist regime. Keeping the U.S. out of another
Mideast civil war is the right U.S. foreign policy action at the right time. Opening up another warzone would
stress the U.S. military and the economy at a time of fragile economic
recovery. If al-Assad needs to go,
it’s shouldn’t be the choice only of the U..S. president.
John M. Curtis a>
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved. |