As recently as October, Secretary of State John Kerry argued that there will never be peace in Syria as long as President Bashar al-Assad “remains the focus of power” there. Even now, American officials continue to insist that any lasting political solution will require Mr. Assad’s exit. But the unsettling truth is that the brutal dictator is still clinging to power and the United States and its allies are going to have to live with him, at least for now.
Mr. Kerry seemed tacitly to acknowledge as much recently when he urgedMr. Assad to change his policies, while omitting the usual call for him to leave office.
In the last year, the situation in Syria has changed quickly and dramatically. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, now controls about half the country, while the rebels America counted on to defeat Mr. Assad have become weaker in the face of steady gains by the regime.
There seems no chance that Mr. Assad will leave power voluntarily anytime soon or that he will be forced out by the non-ISIS rebels unless the United States intervenes directly, a course President Obama has rejected. Recent history should humble anyone who would predict the direction of regime change. Except for Tunisia, countries that overthrew their leaders during the 2011 Arab Spring movements have replaced the old dictators with new ones or descended into chaos.
Besides, the greater threat now is not Mr. Assad but the Islamic State, especially if it continues to expand in Syria, entices more foreign fighters into its ranks and uses its territory to launch attacks on the West. A recent study by the RAND Corporation, which does research for the government, says the collapse of the Assad regime, while unlikely now, would be the “worst possible outcome” for American interests — depriving Syria of its remaining state institutions and creating more space for the Islamic State and other extremists to spread mayhem.
This was not the scenario envisioned in 2011 when Syrians staged peaceful protests against Mr. Assad’s autocratic government. President Obama and European leaders called for Mr. Assad to resign and pressured him with sanctions. The dictator, armed and aided by Russia and Iran, retaliated with his air force and barrel bombs, fueling a civil war in which some 200,000 Syrians have been killed and countless towns destroyed.
As has long been the case, the fighting in Syria raises tough questions and presents the United States with no good options. And Mr. Obama’s approach to the conflict remains the most inchoate element of his campaign against the Islamic State. While the Americans and Mr. Assad ostensibly share a common enemy, the two parties are not formally collaborating. Yet American fighter planes regularly invade Syrian airspace to bomb Islamic State targets. If the main threat is the Islamic State and the goal is to defeat it, might the West at some point be forced to work with Mr. Assad?
The administration says it is training Syrian rebels to assist the United States-led air campaign against the Islamic State, but those fighters will not be engaged for another few months and there are serious doubts about whether they can ever be effective. Figuring out Syria’s longer-term future is even more complicated. If, as American officials say, the only way to end the civil war and forge a common front against ISIS is some kind of political agreement that includes Russia and Iran, Mr. Assad’s major allies, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia, his major opponents, what must Washington do to strengthen its position and shape the outcome?
American officials see an emerging international consensus on the need for a long-term diplomatic solution between Mr. Assad and diverse rebel groups. There is also interest in United Nations-led cease-fires in local communities like Aleppo that might serve as a basis for a broader peace. As The Times has reported, the Russians are trying to bring the two sides into talks later this month, with the apparent aim of a more gradual change in Syria.
But it’s unclear how plausible any of the ideas are, and no one seems to have figured out how to tie these disparate pieces into a coherent game plan. That includes the Republicans who control Congress and spend their time railing against Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, though they have offered no realistic alternatives. The idea of a capable force of “moderate” Syrians that can overthrow Mr. Assad has proved to be a fantasy, even though politicians like Senator John McCain keep insisting otherwise.
Congress must, of course, have a role in advising how to wage this new war against the Islamic State. But it has shirked its duty, and after months of American military action in Iraq and Syria, it has failed to authorize or even seriously debate how this indefinite war should be conducted.
No comments:
Post a Comment