At first glance it seems it should not be too difficult for US President Barack Obama to decide to intervene on the side of the Syrian rebels. After all, at the root of the conflict is the desire of a substantial number of Syrian citizens for a more open and democratic government that reflects the will of the people, rather than the dictates of single autocratic ruler. In other words, many Syrians simply want the same freedoms, rights and privileges that the citizens of the United States, Ireland and many other nations already enjoy. Shouldn’t President Obama support them?
At first glance it seems it should not be too difficult for US President Barack Obama to decide to intervene on the side of the Syrian rebels. After all, at the root of the conflict is the desire of a substantial number of Syrian citizens for a more open and democratic government that reflects the will of the people, rather than the dictates of single autocratic ruler. In other words, many Syrians simply want the same freedoms, rights and privileges that the citizens of the United States, Ireland and many other nations already enjoy. Shouldn’t President Obama support them?
In and of itself, this is a fairly strong moral argument in favour of an American-supported intervention on the side of the Syrian rebel opposition. But it is also an argument that has only been strengthened by the events of the past two years. At first it was the Bashar Assad regime’s brutal response to the largely peaceful Arab Spring demonstrations that precipitated the current conflict. Then, more recently, it was by reports that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons against rebel forces and civilians in several disputed areas of the country.
And there is another argument: that intervening would also be in America’s broader strategic interests. While Syria doesn’t have the oil reserves that other Middle Eastern counties have, it is geographically located in the heart of a region where American strategic interests abound.
Turkey is a key Nato ally that shares a long border with Syria. But Turkey’s government has also been involved in decades of armed conflict with the restive Kurdish minority living near the Syrian border. If Syria dissolves into a group of regions controlled by armed militias, a Kurdish territory in northern Syria could become a safe haven or source of weapons for Kurdish dissidents battling Turkey’s military and police forces.
Jordan is another longstanding American ally that is straining to provide food and electricity for over 500,000 Syrian refugees. But this influx has led to rising tensions between Jordanians and Syrian refugees that may cause the Syrian civil war to spill over into Jordan.
The Syrian civil war also threatens the stability of Lebanon, which has struggled for years to deal with sectarian conflicts between its Muslim and Christian citizens. Lebanon’s Hezbollah militias have been strong supporters of the Assad regime because Syria has long served as a key transit point for the weapons and missiles Iran supplies to them. But now Israel has further inflamed tensions with bombing raids designed to disrupt the flow of Iranian arms to Hezbollah.
There has already been a spillover effect seen in Syria’s eastern neighbour, Iraq. The US-supported government there is dealing with an upsurge in sectarian bombings as well as violent clashes between Iraqi troops and al-Qaeda terrorists that have been drawn into western Iraq by the Syrian civil war. Having just extricated its forces from Iraq, the last thing the US needs is a renewal of the sectarian conflicts that racked the country following the 2003 US invasion of Iraq.
So given the strong moral and strategic arguments in favour of a US intervention in Syria, why is deciding to intervene there such a difficult decision for President Obama to make?
Well, for starters, after more than a decade of involvement in foreign wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public is less than enthusiastic about putting more American soldiers’ lives at risk by jumping into Syria’s civil war. While more Americans favour a Syrian intervention than oppose one, that is only if it can be proven that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. However, recent comments by United Nations investigators, which raised the possibility that the rebels had used chemical weapons, show how difficult proving this will be.
But even if it can be proven that the Assad regime had crossed the line by using chemical weapons like sarin gas, there is still virtually no support in the US Congress or the general public for putting American troops on the ground. There is also no hope that the United States or its Nato allies would ever receive UN approval to intervene on behalf of the Syrian rebels. Russia and China have already said they would veto any UN resolution to authorise this.
So given the general public’s opposition to the use of American ground forces, even if it can be proven that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons, a US and Nato enforced no-fly zone is the only type of military intervention that is possible. But many US military commanders question just how effective the creation of a no-fly zone would be, since it would still not prevent Assad from using his chemical weapons or missiles against the rebels.
The only other option is to supply more advanced weaponry to the Syrian rebels. But if America does this, there is no guarantee those weapons won’t one day end up in the hands of al-Qaeda terrorists who will kill Americans with them. This is the dilemma President Obama faces today.
Charles Laffiteau is a US Republican from Dallas, Texas who is pursuing a PhD in Public Policy and Political Economy. He previously lectured on Contemporary US Business & Society at DCU from 2009-2011.
