f pif .

o rg

http://fpif.o rg/fence-syria-read/

On the Fence about Syria? Read This!

By Peter Certo , September 6, 2013 .

(Ad o lfo Lujan / Flic kr)

Some progressives remain conf licted about how the United States should respond to Syrias increasingly violent civil war. T his internal division has only deepened as the Obama administration considers launching a military strike on Bashar al-Assad f or an alleged chemical attack by regime f orces on civilians last month. Many progressives are rightly skeptical about involving the United States in yet another war in the Middle East, but others are increasingly convinced that only a U.S.-led military strike can check Assads welldocumented brutality. In recent weeks, many leading progressive commentators, members of Congress, and ordinary citizens have reluctantly come to this conclusion. But its a mistaken one. However well intentioned this ef f ort may be, theres no evidence to suggest that the quick and surgical strikes proposed by the Obama administration will meaningf ully change Assads behavior. But theres ample reason to conclude that they could make things much worse. For progressives who are on the f ence about this issue, heres a quick reader on why military intervention is a mistake and what we should be advocating instead. We cant escalate this war. Lets start with something I hope we can agree on: we really, really dont want to escalate this war.

And although some of those anti-Assad f orces originally sprung up to protect the nonviolent protesters being gunned down by the regime, they have since been eclipsed by al-Qaeda-af f iliated groups like the alNusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In addition to committing serious human rights abuses of their own and establishing Taliban-style f ief doms in their areas of control, many of these f ighters belong to the same Sunni extremist groups the United States f ought f or nearly a decade in Iraq. If a U.S. attack on Assad changes the balance of the war, these are the groups best positioned to gain f rom it. (And f or anyone who thinks theyll return the f avor with gratitude, recall that Osama bin Laden himself was among the mujahedeen f ighters that Washington supported against the Soviets in Af ghanistan.) Syrias civil war has already spread into Iraq and Lebanon, with f ighters on all sides of the conf lict carrying out car bombings and waging pitched gun battles in the streets. A large-scale U.S. bombing campaign could push more f ighters and ref ugees into these f ragile states, destabilizing them f urther and potentially dragging the United Statesas well as major Assad backers like Russia and Iraninto a tailspin of regional turmoil. Military intervention could have other unintended ef f ects as well. When NAT O intervened in the SerbiaKosovo war in 1999, f or example, both sides accelerated their ethnic cleansing campaigns. And af ter NAT O f orces joined the war in Libya, anti-Gaddaf i f ighters launched a terrif ying campaign of racial violence against dark-skinned Libyans thought to be loyal to the regime. (And then there was that whole Mali thing.) But what about a limited, surgical strike? Say the United States only launches a quick cruise missile strike on the 36 military targets the Pentagon is thought to be eyeballing. What happens next? One possibility is that Syria would retaliate. As Phyllis Bennis and Scott Charney have pointed out, there are U.S. f orces all over the regionin Af ghanistan, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, Bahrain, and elsewherethat could be vulnerable to attack f rom Syria, Iran, or one of their proxy groups. If Iran gets involved, it could target U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf or close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the worlds oil passes. If any of this happens, the United States could instantly be dragged into a larger war that would become immeasurably more violent. Suppose Assad doesnt strike at the United States but continues using chemical weapons (assuming he actually has already). Does Washington keep bombingunavoidably killing civilians and potentially rallying some Syrians around the regimeuntil he stops? Even if he swears of f chemical weapons categorically, civilians on all sides of the conf lict will still die in droves f rom conventional attacks. T he only meaningf ul change will be an elevated risk f or escalation. T he Wilson Center recently put together a great short list of f our quick military strikes that had longrunning consequences. Remember when Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986? Two years later Libyan agents blew up Pan-Am Flight 103 in retribution. And Bill Clintons 1998 strikes on Af ghanistan and Sudan? T hese helped precipitate the al-Qaeda attacks on the USS Cole and eventually the World Trade Center. All of these led to much larger-scale wars later on. Obviously there were other f actors in each case, but the point is that the United States cant just dunk its toes in the water without getting wet. But dont we have to enforce the international norm against chemical weapons? Yes. But heres the awkward part: the United States actually has a long, painf ul, and surprisingly recent history of its own with these weapons.

Declassif ied documents, f or example, recently conf irmed Washingtons long-suspected cooperation with Saddam Husseins chemical attacks against the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War. And more recently, reports out of Fallujah, Iraqwhere the United States used white phosphorus and potentially depleted uranium during a large-scale assault in 2004have shown spikes in cancer rates and birth def ects outpacing even Hiroshimas af ter its nuclear holocaust. T his doesnt mean the United States doesnt have a responsibility to act, but it does suggest that the international norm against the use of these weapons has survived some pretty grievous abuses already. More to the point, theres another norm we need to be upholding here, and thats the international prohibition on unilateral military action. Since Syria has not attacked the United States and the UN Security Council hasnt authorized any international military action, a U.S. strike on Syria would be unambiguously illegal under international law. Even with the best of intentions, enf orcing a humanitarian norm with an illegal war is a lousy way to uphold international justice. If we fail to act here, wont that give Iran a green light to develop nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons, as Maysam Behravesh has written, are a response to insecurity. No country that decides it really needs nuclear weapons will wait f or Washingtons clearance. Look at the region f rom Irans perspective. Washington garrisons warships and thousands of troops to Irans south and southwest, sells weapons to its Sunni enemies across the Gulf , and supplies its main regional rivalIsraelwith billions of dollars each year in military aid. And in the last decade alone, Iran has seen the United States invade and occupy countries on both its eastern and western borders. If Washington also attacks Syria, Irans most important ally in the region, Iran will be more likelynot lessto decide it needs a nuclear deterrent. Moreover, the timing couldnt be worse. Iran just elected a relatively moderate new president who campaigned on establishing a more cooperative relationship with the West. If the United States and Iran get into a proxy war in Syria, you can kiss those negotiations over its nuclear program goodbye. (In f act this is exactly what some neoconservatives want.) Now is actually the perf ect time to redouble ef f orts to engage Iran, whose presidentno doubt remembering Iraqs use of chemical weapons against Iraniansrecently condemned Syrias alleged use of sarin gas. So what can we do instead? To someone with just a hammer, they say, every problem looks like a nail. Same goes f or superpowers and their militaries. Fortunately theres a lot more in our toolkit than that. Check out Phyllis Bennis great piece on Al Jazeera f or a f ull list. Among other options, Phyllis writes that the United States can call f or a second UN investigation team to determine not only whether chemical weapons were used, but also who used them. And better still, if the U.S. Senate ratif ies the International Criminal Courtthe international body charged with prosecuting war criminalsit will be much better placed to eventually prosecute the culprits f or the attack. T he lack of a bombing campaign now doesnt mean that these criminals wont have to account f or their actions later. Most importantly, instead of butting heads with the Russians and trying to get UN authorization f or a strike on Syria, the United States needs to engage directly with the parties arming the belligerents in Syria to negotiate a f ull international arms embargo. T hat includes principally Russia and Iran on the pro-Assad side and Turkey, the Gulf States, Europe, and the United States on the anti-Assad side. Especially among its allies, the United States has considerable leverage in terms of withholding arms sales and other assistance to extract concessions. Until these parties reach a deeper understanding of each others regional interests, theyll continue to use Syria as a proxy battleground.

Its a tall order, but with neither the rebels nor the regime able to break the stalemate, theres not much other hope f or a solution. An encouraging piece in Foreign Affairs suggests that leaders in Damascus could of f er amnesty to the rebels to initiate negotiations f or a f ormal cease-f ire, which would include international monitoring and peacekeeping troops. T hat would create the space to begin a slow, deliberate process of f ormal mediation that addresses all of the major conf lict issues. Mediation ought to involve third parties and all the major f actions of the opposition. Of peace agreements that have met those conditions, less than f ive have f ailed in the last 25 years. And dont f orget: many, many Syrians are desperately in need of humanitarian aid. T he UN estimates that this war has turned over 2 million Syrians into ref ugees, and international aid has f allen f ar short of whats required to help them. But wont our credibility suffer if Obama doesnt intervene like he said he would? Look. T heres nothing worse f or your credibility than making a huge mistake just because you promised something you shouldnt have. Better that Obama learns to speak more caref ully than the rest of us learn againthat we cant bomb our way to a more peacef ul Middle East. What can I do? Sign a petition. Call your representative. Get out in the streets. United f or Peace and Justice is compiling a running list of places where people are gathering to oppose this war. CREDO Action, MoveOn, and Avaaz have drawn up antiwar petitions, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation has all the inf ormation you need to contact your member of Congress. And if it helps, you can share this article with any of your f riends who are on the f ence. Peter Certo is the acting editor of Foreign Policy In Focus. FPIF assistant editor Julia Paley, FPIF intern Sina Toossi, and several others contributed helpful thoughts during the development of this piece.