Consequences of U.S. inaction in Syria are clear

• Text Size
• Print
• E-mail
• Reprints

By Editorial Board, Monday, January 28, 4:53 PM

IT MIGHT seem as though the horrors of Syria, where more than 60,000 people have died violently in the last 22 months, could not grow worse. Yet steadily, week by week, they do. One measure is the refu­gee flows: In the past month more than 30,000 people have fled to neighboring Jordan alone, threatening to overwhelm an already unstable monarchy. More than 200,000 Syrians are now in Lebanon, 150,000 in Turkey and 75,000 in Iraq, according to the United Nations. A group of U.S. senators who recently visited a camp heard horrific stories of the ongoing crimes by the regime of Bashar al-Assad, as well as bitter complaints that Western countries — in particular, the United States — are doing little or nothing to help.
The logic at work here — the longer the Assad regime holds on, the worse the consequences — was acknowledged by senior Obama administration officials nearly a year ago. The incoming secretary of state, John F. Kerry, repeated it at his confirmation hearing last week: “Every day that goes by, it gets worse.” From that follows a logical conclusion, stated Monday by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius: “If we don’t give the means to the Syrian people to go achieve their freedom, there is a risk . . . that massacres and antagonisms amplify, and that extremism and terrorism prevail.”

14

Comments

• Weigh In
• Corrections?

Personal Post

Washington Post Editorials

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board. News reporters and editors never contribute to editorial board discussions, and editorial board members don’t have any role in news coverage.

Read more

Latest Editorials

America’s deadly inaction

Editorial Board 4:53 PM ET

The consequences of U.S. passivity in Syria are plain to see.

The power to snoop

Editorial Board 4:53 PM ET

Congress should curb the government’s ability to peer into your inbox.

Gov. McDonnell’s legacy

Editorial Board JAN 27

Transportation and redistricting may define how Virginians will remember his tenure.

The Obama administration nevertheless appears stuck on Syria, unable to decide even on simple measures to help the opposition. Not only does it refuse to provide weapons to moderate rebel fighting units — which complain of shortages even as materiel pours in to jihadist groups — but it claims it is legally barred from giving even non-lethal aid directly to the Syrian National Coalition. U.S. humanitarian aid goes to private groups such as the Red Crescent or, worse, the United Nations, which passes much of it along to the regime.
In speaking about Syria in recent days, Mr. Kerry and President Obama described not a strategy for stopping a bloodbath that threatens vital U.S. interests but rather a series of excuses for inaction. In an interview with the New Republic published over the weekend, Mr. Obama wondered how to “weigh” the thousands dying in Syria against the thousands being killed in the Congo, as if all wars are of equal importance to the United States or the inability to solve every problem means America should not help even where it can.
Not for the first time, Mr. Obama also asked whether U.S. intervention could “trigger even worse violence or the use of chemical weapons.” The president asked the same question a year ago, and the answer is now known: In the absence of U.S. action, the violence grew far worse and the Assad regime moved dangerously close to using chemical arms.
The United States could do much to shape the course of events in Syria without using American troops. It could begin providing aid directly to Syrian refu­gee organizations and civilian councils inside the country, as France has done for months. It could provide arms to moderate rebel factions, so that they can compete with the jihadists and so that they will look to the United States when the war is over. Continued passivity will ensure that the crisis in Syria continues to worsen — along with the consequences for the United States.

Read more from Opinions:
Richard Cohen: Obama’s failure in Syria
David Ignatius: Worries about a ‘failed state’ in Syria
The Post’s View: Assad and U.S. are blind to reality in Syria
Jackson Diehl: A jihadist group prospers in Syria

end quote from:

Consequences of US inaction in Syria are clear

Though the consequences of U.S. inaction are clear, the consequences of visible U.S. action would be  confusing at best. First, if the U.S. openly gave weapons to the rebels likely we would see what happened to the French and many others in Libya, where through the Tuareg who were aligned with Qaddhafi and went to Mali after the war in Libya and took both heavy weapons and lighter weapons there to Mali, and many wound up in the hands of Islamic Terrorists, even though Tuaregs for the most part are secular and not Islamic Terrorists.

So, if we had sent weapons into Syria would they now be in the hands of Al Qaeda in Syria right now? And would those weapons suffer a similar fate to weapons given to the Libyan Rebels to bring down Qaddhafi? Assad likely will fall sooner or later and it is not useful for the U.S. or Europe to have to directly go to war with Russia or China or even Iran over Syria. What will come next likely will be no real government in Syria unfortunately. So, as a result NATO countries including the U.S. are trying to build a governmental system in Syria now without Assad since about 98% is now controlled by Syrian Rebels except for Damascus and parts of Aleppo.