The Quagmire of Syria

From Trayvon Martin to Obamacare to the tragedy in Sandy Hook, there exist topics which generate a great deal of emotion and perspective from different sides. What's common with these aforementioned topics, you can largely (admittedly not completely) bifurcate opinions politically. Conservatives stand on one side and progressives stand on another. What's interesting is how the prospect of military intervention on Syria has created strange bedfellows across political lines, with Republican leaders in the House and Senate standing with President Obama opposed by Tea Party-affiliated members of Congress standing together with staunchly anti-war Democrats. This is a pretty good sign that this is a chaotic and convoluted mess with no easy answers.

To catch everyone up, there's a helpful summary on CNN.com which summarizes the Syrian conflict as well as a Syria Conflict 101 cheatsheet, but in a nutshell, there's a conflict between the established, authoritarian government led by Bashar al-Assad and a rebellion comprised of a number of different factions, including ex-government soldiers, political opponents of Assad and Islamist groups. Reports of hundreds killed in chemical weapon attacks in mid-August further raised the stakes. President Obama had previous referred to the use of chemical weapons as "a red line" and with that being crossed, a debate rages on in terms of the appropriate American response.

I personally struggle with taking a clear position regarding our response because on some level, I recognize that I'm not privy to certain intelligence which President Obama and government leaders might have. But given what I do know, I tend to lean against a military response at this time. My reasons are similar to what many other people and pundits have already shared:

• The Devil You Know. Assad is no friend to the United States, but any military response which tips the scales in the rebellion's favor brings us one step closer to an uncertain regime. There's little confidence that a unified provisional government is going to be well-prepared to take the reins upon a power vacuum. If Assad falls, who takes his place? A secular democracy? A Islamist theocracy? A Balkanized collection of loosely governed territories run by local warlords? Are we more comfortable with mass weapons of destruction being in the hands of one thug as opposed to twenty thugs? How about Al Qaeda-aligned militias? The fact of the matter is that not only are the rebels not unified, but there are a lot of "bad guys" on the rebels.

• Going It Alone. For a universal horror such as a chemical weapon attack, you'd think that the United States would be able to rustle some sort of a international alliance to provide global credibility, which would both mitigate military and diplomatic risk. Instead, not only has the UN Security Council stalled in any type of anti-Assad resolution (granted, Russia and China have obstructed any progress here due to their own interests) we've seen our closest ally in Great Britain vote against military intervention. Does the United States really want to stand alone?

• What Red Line? Another article from CNN hashes this out nicely, so I won't repeat it here, but a fair question is being asked on two levels. First, why doesn't any sort of action against civilians represent a red line? Is it any less horrific for a government to massacre an opposing faction with flamethrowers or bullets? Then on the opposite side, are there any red lines in the context of war? The United States, after all is a country that didn't think twice about killing 250,000 of its own people who opposed the government in a civil war. It's also the same country that to this day used atomic weapons of mass destruction against an opponent, and did it twice. Cynics argue convincingly that the main reason why the United States abhors weapons of mass destruction is that these are the great equalizer. In a conventional armed conflict, the United States will always hold an advantage. This disappears when weapons of mass destruction are introduced.   

• No Clear and Present Danger. There's a clear and present danger component to our military intervention which is absent here. Traditionally, there's been a compelling narrative around how American citizens are in imminent harm's way. That argument was found to be spurious in the latest Iraq War, and the case to intervene in Syria is even a worse stretch. Assad has never sought to attack the United States or United States citizens. This leads to bigger question around whether such a conflict is in the United States' best interests at all. There is a nuance between an endeavor which is honorable and one which is worthwhile. Or put another way, there are plenty of things that the United States can do that are "good", but with limited resources, what are the endeavors which are most highly prioritized?

• The "Remember the Maine" Syndrome. Right before the turn of the century, Cuba was seeking an independence from Spain which was conveniently aligned with United States' foreign policy and business interests. The battleship USS Maine was sent to Cuba and while in Havana Harbor on February 15th, 1898, an explosion ripped through the ship, killing 266 sailors. The event - at the time attributed to a Spanish mine - became a rallying cry for Americans with pro-war rallies screaming "Remember the Maine!", eventually leading to the Spanish-American War and subsequently American control over Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam and the the Philippines. While more fringe theories include Cuban or American sabotage in an attempt to draw the United States into war, most believe that an internal coal fire was the culprit. Going back to Syria, I haven't yet seen conclusive evidence that Assad is responsible for these chemical weapons-related casualties. Some (admittedly non-mainstream) news sources have gone so far as to report that the resulting casualties resulted from rebel mishandling of smuggled weapons. Or if I put it this way, few doubt that chemical weapons were used. The question remains: who was responsible?

So we all pray and hope for peace. And we hope and pray that men and women who know more and sit in positions of influence act justly and wisely with such high stakes.