Op-Ed Columnist
Intervene in Syria
By ROGER COHEN
Published: February 4, 2013
Munich
Related in Opinion
-
Op-Ed Contributor: After Assad, Chaos? (February 4, 2013)
SYRIA, for Israel, is a conundrum. The ousting of its despotic ruler,
Bashar al-Assad, would remove Iran’s sole Arab ally and cut the Iranian
conduit to its Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah. That is in Israel’s strategic
interest. On the other hand Israel does not relish post-Assad chaos in
Syria that allows sophisticated weaponry to fall into the hands of Al
Qaeda splinter groups that love a vacuum and loathe Jews.
So it was interesting to hear Israel’s outgoing defense minister, Ehud
Barak, speak in favor of Assad’s departure at the Munich Security
Conference, saying he hoped to see it happen “imminently.” No option on
Syria at this stage of its unraveling is without significant risk. But
the worst course is the one President Obama and Western leaders have
fallen into: Feeble paralysis most foul.
Israel has just bombed a Syrian convoy of antiaircraft weapons
in a sortie that also hit a weapons research center — with no response
from Assad beyond a belated grumble that this was “destabilizing” (that
process seems advanced already). Just how much of a paper tiger Assad
has become is one question raised by this attack. Another is whether the
Western use of force will inevitably provoke a strong Syrian riposte;
it seems not.
Syria, 22 months into its uprising, presents an unconscionable picture.
Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations special representative for Syria,
summed up the disaster in a leaked report
to the Security Council on Jan. 29. He spoke of “cities that look like
Berlin in 1945.” He decried the 60,000 killed, the massacres, the
700,000 refugees (rising to one million in a few months), the more than
two million internally displaced and the tens of thousands of detainees.
He warned of neighbors including Jordan and Lebanon collapsing under a
further flood of refugees.
“I am sorry if I sound like an old, broken record,” Brahimi told the
Security Council. “But I seriously don’t see where else one should start
or end except in saying that things are bad and getting worse, the
country is breaking up before everyone’s eyes; there is no military
solution to this conflict — at least not one that will not destroy Syria
completely and destroy also the nation of Syria; Syrians cannot
themselves start a peace process, their neighbors are not able to help
them; only the international community may help.”
But of course the “international community” — that awful phrase — is
divided, with a Libya-burned Russia and an anti-intervention China deep
in a blocking game. Brahimi wants a transitional government formed with
“full executive powers” (this, he explained, is diplomatic speak for
Assad having “no role in the transition”). The government would be the
fruit of negotiations outside Syria between opposition representatives
and a “strong civilian-military” government delegation. It would then
oversee a democratic transition including elections and constitutional
reform.
This sounds good but will not fly. I agree with Brahimi that there is no
military solution. Syria, with its mosaic of faiths and ethnicities,
requires political compromise to survive. That is the endgame. But this
does not mean there is no military action that can advance the desired
political result by bolstering the armed capacity of the Syrian
opposition, leveling the military playing field, and hastening the
departure of Assad essential for the birth of a new Syria. Assad the
Alawite will not go until the balance of power is decisively against
him.
The United States does not want to get dragged into another intractable
Middle Eastern conflict. Americans are tired of war. My colleagues
Michael Gordon and Mark Landler have revealed how Obama blocked an attempt last summer by Hillary Clinton to train and supply weapons to selected Syrian rebel groups.
Nor does Obama want to find himself in the business of helping Islamist
extremists inherit a Syrian vacuum. The opposition coalition is divided
and lacks credibility. But the net result of these concerns cannot be
feckless drift as Syria burns. Senator John McCain was right to say here
that, “We should be ashamed of our collective failure to come to the
aid of the Syrian people” and to answer a question about how to break
the impasse with two words: “American leadership.”
An inflection point has been reached. Inaction spurs the progressive
radicalization of Syria, the further disintegration of the state, the
intensification of Assad’s mass killings, and the chances of the
conflict spilling out of Syria in sectarian mayhem. It squanders an
opportunity to weaken Iran. This is not in the West’s interest. The
agreement that Assad has to go is broad; a tacit understanding that it
is inevitable exists in Moscow. The Turkish foreign minister, Ahmet
Davutoglu, spluttered in justified incredulity at the notion the
opposition would sit down with a regime that has slaughtered its own.
It is time to alter the Syrian balance of power enough to give political
compromise a chance and Assad no option but departure. That means an
aggressive program to train and arm the Free Syrian Army. It also means
McCain’s call to use U.S. cruise missiles to destroy Assad’s aircraft on
the runway is daily more persuasive.
No comments:
Post a Comment