Tuesday , 27 June 2017
Latest News
You are here: Home » Articles » Hard choices in Syria

Hard choices in Syria

Sherry Rehman

As the Syrian crisis escalates, the leadership forced on America after the Second World War has once again taken it to the frontlines of what it sees as international obligation. From the G-20 summit to the Arab street, the debate on how the United States responds to the monstrous use of chemical weapons is fast and furious, oscillating between the overtly moral and the strategic as the motive for action.

syria_flag

To the rest of the world, the broad moral issue is not about whether inaction against Bashar al-Assad is unconscionable or not. That would be a clean sluice of a choice. Except to regional allies, his sell-by date as president of Syria had already been tainted by a protracted brutal civil war that forced two million into dystopic homelessness. The allegation of unleashing chemical weapons was the nail in his political coffin. But if moral choice is the standard, which alone rarely guides the actions of nation-states or coalitions, the hard choice would hinge on facing one question: How many lives would US military action secure? The political question for Americans should not be the domestic cost of tempered action, or inaction in the face of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). It should be about at least the medium term, when instead of peace breaking out after unilateral action, the global conversation will not be about chemical weapons prevention, but about post-Assad Syria and the red lines the United States crosses in judging allies and enemies by different moral yardsticks.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan still hanging over the global map as both divisive and inconclusive, American military options are riddled with peril. For President Obama, the publically stated red line was drawn a while ago in the brave hope of preventing President Assad’s move toward chemical weapons. Now the intents seem to be multiple. In protecting credibility and projecting American power in the face of potential WMD, he has thrown the ball into the US Congress’s political gridlock. This is seen in Washington as a smart political choice. It allows the administration to watch Syrian forces, to lend ear to both calls to caution and action, to amass flotilla muscle in the Mediterranean to mount pressure on the Syrian regime, and operate with a cassus belli explicable to domestic public opinion, because, really, that is where America’s recent wars are explained. With politics becoming increasingly fractious in the United States, the foreign policy calculus also gets shaped by domestic power compulsions.

In the meantime, General Dempsey, Joint Chief of US Military Staff, has spelt out the costs, both military and economic, to a country in international military overstretch. But more importantly, he has warned of the unintended consequences that this war may unleash. So the main question shaping the evolving response in Washington really should be rooted in what endgame a limited military intervention provides, which the Senate has authorized.

As the countdown to a House vote builds up, Congress should look to avoiding the charge of not only arming the old enemy but investing in widening the conflict. Why? Because no rebel group will be able to transition Syria to democracy, let alone fill the power vacuum without sustained help. The Free Syrian Army’s confidence in securing Damascus, Assad’s cache of chemical weapons and preventing revenge killings is an overconfident assessment of a battlefield that is too chaotic. A punitive missile barrage whose only intent is yes, shock and awe, runs a real risk of empowering Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda.

For Pakistan, this is as complex as it gets. The Iran-Israel standoff will shape many responses on the Pakistani street. In the absence of any Muslim unity, the dangers of a Levantine meltdown, with Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the side of the rebels, and Hezbollah and Iran on another, will become even more perilous. It will exponentially feed the Al Qaeda swamp Pakistan paid such a high price to drain. It will also drive up oil prices, and push Islamabad into facing a rising horde of conspiracy-theorists, burning American flags, and walking into a convoluted psychic universe of angry people wearing “I am Assad” t-shirts. Seriously!

The problem is there are no good choices in Syria right now, because it really is too late for that. History teaches us that in a void, there are no guarantees of who, or in this case, whose proxies will seize the ground. Ergo, it is crucial to calibrate a series of options that send both the right message so important to American politics, as well as to provide space for less sub-optimal outcomes. These could include a range of strategic, diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives. Refugees could be given asylum, as in Sweden. Moves for defections to shake Assad out of the palace which are already under way could be ramped up. The UN could put him and his family into an international travel gulag. A business freeze with Assad supporters could be imposed. Antidotes to nerve agents can be sent to the Syrian Free Army. Political reconciliation and an American olive twig to Iran also could help bolster the view that in the region, US intent is not about maximizing Israeli hegemony or Iran’s isolation.

The United Nations should also be leveraged better, arguably the last notional meeting point for taking clear multilateral positions. Its support still carries a patina of legitimacy, which is why states spend a lot of time and money working its system. In the Syrian case the charter does not permit military action, even if the R2P (Right to Protect) argument is used. The worry is that even if evidence of the sarin gas is found, as this is likely not an intel debacle like Iraq and its alleged WMD redux, the UN’s limits in making moral choices may still obstruct action because its Security Council will be guided by strategic rivalries. But the UN is also the best hope where a compromise between human rights, sovereignty and intervention can be thrashed out. In this process, the priority in Syria, if morality is the stated motive for military action, can be redefined as the long, tough, expensive haul needed to protect populations.

Sometimes it causes less harm to say we can’t lead the world in ways that re-shape it. The sarin gas monsters prompt action. Yet states, especially superpowers, must act in ways that don’t intensify the ruinous course already set for another. For Syria now, the first priority must be to slow down a tailspin triggered by its own rulers. Not to take action that will spawn more horrors.

sherry_rehmanThe writer, who is Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United States and former minister for information & broadcasting, and executive president of the Jinnah Institute. One can follow her on Twitter: @sherryrehman.

This  article first appeared in Express Tribune.

8 comments

  1. Its suchh as you read my thoughts! You appear to know so much
    about this, such as you wrote the ebook in it or something.

    I believe that you simply can do witth a few % to power the message
    house a bit, however instead of that, that is magnificent blog.
    An excelent read. I’ll definitely be back.

    Also visit my homepage :: quantum phygsics dvd
    (Gabriela)

  2. I believe your site maverickpakistanis.com has actually amazing material.
    Hard choices in Syria | Maverick Pakistanis write-up is an exceptional example.

  3. Anonymous,I fear you’ll have a hard time challenging yntahnig by calling yourself anonymous. If I may encourage you to use your first name so I could keep track of who’s who, that would be most helpful. I have no way of knowing which anonymous commentator you are otherwise.I wonder why you feel the need to psychoanalyze me. I’m quite sure there are many wonderful Arabs. I’ve never suggested that Arabs are all the same. In fact, I have several dear friends who are Arabs, Middle Eastern, Druze, etc. As for Jews being pro-Israel the bulk are, especially in Israel. That’s merely a reality largely ingrained in a quest for human survival. Would you expect an Israeli to want to see the destruction of their nation-state that they built from swamp and dirt?I find it questionable that you’re so offended I’m pointing to the inhumane treatment Jews suffered under Syria’s regime. Should I ignore that to appease anonymous commentators such as yourself? Should I deny my heritage to appease your distaste for Israel?Peace is mirage if you expect the bulk of Israeli Jewry to hide what they went through under Arab nationalist regimes. I haven’t an ounce of European blood. So when anti-Zionists and/or anti-Semities tell me to go back to Europe, I can only conclude that they don’t know the realities of what Mizrahi Jewry faced in their native lands or that they are hateful. I hope it’s the former as ignorance, through education, can be corrected. With best regards,Reut R. Cohen

  4. This site is like a classroom, except I don’t hate it. lol

  5. Stunning card. Love that sweet image and how you have coloured her. The papers and embellishments are gorgeous, especially like that large lace flower.Denise xx

  6. Here's a prediction. Based on the what the Yankees saw when they called him up last September and him being voted one of the best at his position at the just finished AFL and IF Romine can stay healthy through Spring Training I say he gets a shot at being the Yankees starting catcher in 2013. But we'll see.

  7. / dang it… it turns out it is kind of fake… the trainer DOES guide them look up Can jumbo elephants really paint? Intrigued by stories, naturalist Desmond Morris set? out to find the truth

  8. Bukse eller overzised t-skjorte fra Mellow Rose tror jeg at jeg hadde valgt om jeg var heldig og vinne:)Mye lekkert!!Ha en finfin søndag ♥

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>