To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

To Bomb, or Not to Bomb

In one corner, Bashshar, Iran, and Hezbollah.

In the other corner, al-Qaida, here about to execute two Syrian children.

Good and Evil, as Decided by CNN

As the American public's fascination with Syria has grown to a crescendo over the last few weeks, its interest piqued by Obama's declaration of Syria's bombability, the airwaves have been flooded with stupidity.  The conflict is oft-presented as a clash between bad guys (Bashshar and friends) and good guys (Free Syrian Army).  The sad truth is that both sides (wrongly) deem themselves the good guys, and consider their causes to be just, even while committing atrocities against the civilian population.

Bashshar presents himself as a champion of the Syrian people, defending the homeland from al-Qaida terrorists, of both the homegrown and foreign varieties.  He views the civil war as one to prevent radical Islamic terrorists from taking over, ruining the secular tapestry that has weaved together Sunnis, Shias, Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and Christians.  The takfiri (Muslims who consider others, including less religious Muslims to be nonbelievers) rebels view Assad as both a tyrant and his sect (Alawites) as impure.  There have been countless episodes of murder and ethnic cleansing against non-Sunnis, which the rebels claim is a response to the government's vicious crackdown against mainly Sunni militants and civilians.  Violence begets violence, and at this point, identifying who started the fighting is irrelevant to those on the ground fighting for their lives.

There is occasionally an acknowledgement on American television that there are "a few" fanatics fighting on the side of the "good guys", but their crimes are minimized, trivialized, or altogether ignored.  American political talk shows don't discuss at length the examples of the horrific crimes of the rebels; I have seen many incidents like this graphic video of Islamist lunatics murdering children, or this story of a 14 year old boy executed by al Qaida-inspired fanatics, or this video of rebels executing 51 POWs, or attempts to ethnically cleanse, kidnap, and murder Alawites qua Alawites and Christians because of their religious differences.  Even John McCain, when he went to Syria, ended up meeting with Sunnis responsible for kidnapping Shia pilgrims.  Are these really the people America should be supporting?  Did we not learn in Afghanistan that our enemy's enemy is not necessarily our friend?  Helping Islamists who wish to impose religious fundamentalist views on a once-beautiful, secular, multi-ethnic country like Syria is a terrible idea. 

Only A Few Bad Guys, Seriously

 Several days ago on CNN, I heard John Kerry parroting a woman named Elizabeth O'Bagy (a noted supporter of Jabhat al-Nusra--a group which pledged its loyalty to al-Qaida, and is deemed a terrorist organization by the US, the UN, and the UK, among others), who  "determined" that only 15% of the Syrian rebels are "extremists".  I wonder how Ms. O'Bagy arrived at these figures; did she do a head count?  Was there a multiple-choice test given to the rebels on which they listed their feelings about jihad on a 1-5 basis?  Does she think that rebels who desperately want American money will show their true feelings for a white western woman?  The naiveté on display by Kerry in parroting Ms. O'Bagy (or "Bagly", as Kerry called her) was something to behold.  I understand why President Obama wants to strike Asad; the Syrian dictator has shown himself to be a war criminal, someone responsible for kidnapping, torturing, and killing his own citizens.  More than 100,000 people have died in the civil war, a war caused mostly by Bashshar's desire to maintain an iron grip on power.  Whether or not Asad is responsible for the most recent use of chemical weapons which killed almost 500 people (German intelligence believes that the chemical weapons were used by Asad's forces but against his orders), he is a mass-murderer, a tyrant, a key patron of Hezbollah, a close ally of Iran, and is fighting against al-Qaida supporters from all over the world.

Missiles and Bombs and B-52s, Oh My!

One of the most confusing elements of the Obama plan is that we, the public, have not the foggiest idea what the goal is, or how we will effectuate that goal via the air strikes prescribed by the President.  At first it seemed as though the goal of air strikes was merely to punish Asad for his use of chemical weapons (a morally correct position, albeit one with limited practical use).  When that idea got laughed off as silly and without merit (at least when considering the possible consequences), the administration leaked that a more serious and sustained bombing campaign was being considered.  So, if America commits to a massive bombing campaign in Syria, does that mean the goal is regime change, or are we merely trying to tip the balance in favor of al-Qaida and the Free Syrian Army?   Today, upon hearing of the positive reception of Russia and Syria to Secretary of State Kerry's proposal to put Syria's chemical weapons under international supervision, President Obama greeted the news with optimism and a healthy dose of skepticism.  Perhaps most interestingly, Obama said of such a move, "if we can accomplish this limited goal without taking military action, that would be my preference."  So in the span of a week, the Obama administration has gone from strikes with the intent to merely send a signal, to a full-blown extended aerial bombing campaign, to a willingness to not strike at all.

Obama's skepticism at Russia and Syria's willingness to put Asad's chemical stash under international control is well-placed.  Bashshar and Putin still maintain the former's overall innocence (not a surprising position for Putin to take given his own violent, oppressive, authoritarian streak), so they aren't exactly the most credible fonts of truth.  Further, given America's inaction towards Iran, there is ample reason to believe that America can be led-on via the promise of negotiations.  Of course, Iran and Syria are massively different animals, and the potential response from bombing Syria pales in comparison to the potential response of bombing Iran.  Still, the principle remains the same.  The longer Russia and Bashshar can negotiate with Obama into accepting some kind of international control over Bashshar's chemical weapons, the less likely it becomes that America will actually have the chutzpah to bomb.  Why?  Because a war-weary people, in an incredibly-partisan environment, will inevitably bicker and split apart on such a drastic action.  The Republican Party has already splintered, as has the Democratic Party.  Interventionists such as McCain and Graham favor bombing, while libertarian types such as Rand Paul and the Tea Party are against external forays that do not serve American interests.  On the Democrats' side, peaceniks such as Bernie Sanders are against another war, whereas centrists like Feinstein and Boxer back the President.  The 800 pound gorilla in the room is public opinion, which has remained against striking Syria, despite the media's efforts to galvanize support for bombing a tyrant.

The fragile bipartisan coalition (of the willing, as GWB would say) will surely crumble. McCain, the old hawk, has already started hedging his support of Obama's decision to bomb Syria, criticizing the man who defeated him in 2008 for warning Syria ahead of time of our plan to attack (at a later date).  There is no shortage of irony in hearing that Senators want the President to attack without consulting Congress, as he is Constitutionally bound to do.   That being said, Obama's apparent willingness to bomb has at least created enough fear in the Russian-Syrian camp to discuss giving up chemical weapons.  Of course, such a slap on the wrist would not really tip the balance of power in the war, as Asad's air force will still be able to dictate results on the ground, this time without the threat of any American interference.

What Consequences May Come?

If Congress gives the go ahead, or if Obama launches a massive bombing campaign without Congress, the interesting question then becomes how the various players in the region will respond.  There is always a dose of fear that Asad will launch missiles at Israel, a fear which I deem to be misguided.  If Asad wanted to attack Israel, he would have done so already.  Israel destroyed Syria's nascent nuclear program in 2007, and attacked Syria several times during the course of the current civil war, targeting shipments of weapons bound for Hezbollah.  Asad dared not respond then, and there is no reason to think he would respond now.  Asad's ultimate goal is to stay in power, and if he were to use chemical weapons on Israel, or to launch serious missiles at the Jewish state, then Israel would annihilate his regime in response.

Asad is playing the long game; if America attacks Syria, instead of responding by firing missiles at American targets, Asad will present the (inevitable) mass of dead civilians killed in an American strike as proof that the rebels and America are working together against Syria.  Of course, if our bombing strikes were of such a magnitude as to kill Asad and or cripple his regime, then Syria would resemble Lebanon during its lengthy civil war, a fragmented nation of warring hamlets divided by religion and ethnicity.  In such a situation it is fair to assume that the Sunni jihadists would enter "Syria" (at that point it would no longer be a country) en masse from Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, Israel (yes, Israel) and Lebanon, while Hezbollah and Shia militiamen from Iraq would certainly join the fray as well, with Iran playing a robust role in attempting to fill the void left by Asad.  There would be spillover throughout the region, and calls by local politicians to not bring the fighting back home would eventually fall on deaf ears in Iraq, as they have already started to do in Lebanon.

Hezbollah would be in a difficult position in the case of an American attack.  Just as the American public is war-weary, so too is the Lebanese.  The big difference is that America is a (mostly) united entity, whereas Lebanon is not; Hezbollah is a militia within a state that has proven valuable to the defense of Lebanon against Israel, but has created other serious problems.  How can a militia working on behalf of only one minority group (Shias) represent and serve the interests of the country as a whole?  It cannot.  Hezbollah's entire raison d'être is to fight on behalf of the Shias in the south of Lebanon, which on its face means the organization is not working on behalf of the other residents of Lebanon.  If Hezbollah, at Iran's behest, launches strikes against Israel in the event of an American strike on Syria, the party will be accused of bringing great misery onto Lebanon when Israel inevitably responds with massive firepower.  I doubt Hezbollah wants another war with Israel now, especially with so many American warships menacingly positioned in the eastern Mediterranean.  A miscalculation by Hezbollah, whether a strike against the (now almost empty) US Embassy in Lebanon, or an attack on an American warship, or an attack against Israel causing a high civilian casualty count could trigger a regional war.  

What To Do?

There is no American military solution for the civil war in Syria.  Obama may be able to make some diplomatic headway in a face-saving maneuver in which the Syrians give up their chemical weapons, but the war itself will continue.  If we intervene, either we will do too little or too much; either way the result will not be appealing (either we take out Asad and al-Qaida takes over, or we don't do enough and Asad uses the strike as propaganda and a further reason to crackdown on America's nominal allies, the rebels, which means death for the civilians in the areas in which the rebels embed themselves).  America's best option is to keep supporting the refugees so as to not (further) destabilize the surrounding countries, particularly Jordan. Currently in the Hashemite Kingdom, more than 1 million Syrian refugees find themselves, and the strain their presence puts on an already poor country cannot be overstated.  On the military front, America must ascertain which of the rebel groups are not Islamist in nature, and thus can be supported with arms (funding al-Qaida is counterproductive for an endless list of reasons).  The fight itself is not ours, and any direct involvement will only cause a deterioration for the region as a whole.