Liberals arguing that the U.S. should give weapons to Syrian rebels underestimate Assad's power

[Douglas Carpenter]

Last edited Thu Sep 12, 2013, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

This article is from more than a year ago - but I think the points are still very, very relevant. I strongly recommend reading this article in full - in salon.com by Gary Kamiya:

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

snips:

This is not a knee-jerk left-wing response. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Nor does it have anything to do with the proxy war between the U.S. and its allies and Iran and its allies. It is not driven by pacifism or opposition to all war. All U.S. wars are not axiomatically foolish, evil or driven by brutal self-interest (although most of them since World War II have been). The airstrikes on Kosovo and the Libya campaign were justified (although the jury is still out on the latter intervention). If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful, open, democratic society, we should arm them.

That analysis has been provided by a number of in-depth reports, most notably a new study by the International Crisis Group, as well as the excellent on-the-ground reporting of Nir Rosen for Al-Jazeera. The bottom line is simple. The war has become a zero-sum game for Assad. If he loses, he dies. But the only way he can lose is if he is abandoned by his crucial external patron, Russia, which is extremely unlikely to happen absent some slaughter so egregious that Moscow feels it has to cut ties with him. Assad has sufficient domestic support to hold on for a long time, and a huge army that is not likely to defect en masse. Under these circumstances, giving arms to the rebels, however much it may make conscience-stricken Western observers feel better, will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous.

The key point concerns Assad’s domestic support. Contrary to the widely held belief that most Syrians support the opposition and are opposed to the Assad regime, Syrians are in fact deeply divided. The country’s minorities – the ruling Alawites, Christians and Druze – tend to support the regime, if only because they fear what will follow its downfall. (The grocery on my corner in San Francisco is owned by a Christian Syrian from a village outside Damascus. When I asked him what he thought about what was going on in his country, he said, “It’s not like what you see on TV. Assad is a nice guy. He’s trying to do the right thing.”) As Rosen makes clear, Syria’s ruling Alawite minority is the key to Assad’s survival: Absent an outside invasion, the regime will not fall unless the Alawites turn on it. But the Alawites fear reprisals if the Sunni-dominated opposition, some of whose members have threatened to “exterminate the Alawites,” defeats the Assad regime. The fear of a sectarian war, exacerbated by the murky and incoherent nature of the opposition, means that the minorities are unlikely to join the opposition in large numbers.

...

Our national instinct is to come riding to the rescue. It goes against our character to simply sit on our hands. Our sincere, naive and self-centered belief that America can fix everything, and our equally sincere, naive and self-centered belief that moral outrage justifies intervention, is a powerful tide, pulling us toward getting directly involved in Syria’s civil war.

But in the real world, we cannot always come riding to the rescue. Sometimes, we have no choice but to watch tragedy unfold, because anything we do will create an even bigger tragedy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/13/dont_arm_syrias_rebels/singleton/

[pelsar]

1. so leave assad alone....

so basically the wisest political decision is to let assad slaughter his 'own people" without outside interference.

like father like son

[Douglas Carpenter]

2. American might cannot do everthing-it's better to follow the policy that results in less slaughter

American might cannot stop a fraction of the conflicts in Africa and around the world - and would probably make matters far worse if they tried. If the real live consequences of arming the rebels in Syria would make matters far worse - and Assad is not going to fall anyway...but a lot more chaos is going to be created and a lot more slaughter is going to occur- it is simply wiser to follow the less destructive policy. In order for Assad to fall - America would have to intervene on an absolutely massive scale and most likely confront a very risky showdown with the Russians - and even then the results would be doubtful. –If by chance massive intervention did result in Assad falling -- as awful as he is - the problems will have just begun especially for the Christian minority and the other minorities who continue to back the Bathist regime.

[pelsar]

3. yes...i've noticed that interference can make matters worse.....

kind of like in Libya...or setting it up so hamas could take gaza ....and now putting pressure on israel so hamas can get their hands on the west bank as well.....

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. sorry, but we do have an understanding not to get into the Israel/Palestine conflict

on this forum.

[pelsar]

5. sorry....knee jerk reaction...

i'll stick with agreeing with you that its "acceptable" to let assad massacre his own people due to politics, lack of will, logistics on the part of the west.....

but the lack of "progressive' protesting is rather disappointing (its not that i expected anything....), but the left doesn't really have the excuse that the western countries have

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. If arming the Syrian opposition would result in fewer deaths and a faster transition to a peaceful,

open, democratic society, we should arm them.

If giving arms to the rebels will simply make the civil war much bloodier and its outcome even more chaotic and dangerous then I don't think we should.

I think the later is almost certainly the case.

[pelsar]

7. your arguing that the left should be pragmatic...

but you've to two parts there:
ending a war sooner and creating a democratic society.

and ending the war has nothing to do with the creation of a democratic society...in fact i wonder if the opposite is true. a long drawn out war might (and you'll forgive my future reading abilities here) might allow the opposition to become organized, to be armed with western conditions so that a new taliban, new zimbabw, new iran does not rise up out of the ashes of the resistance. that this resistance be taught the ways of democracy. Create local governing councils (similar to the Palestinians of Intifada I) with a unified leadership..again as per the Palestenian intifada I model.)

he i just found a new job for hanna ashwari
*note this is not to draw in the I/P conflict here, just a notation that there is a model to perhaps use.....

the "new model" of NATO bombing for 6 months killing untold numbers just to finish the war quicker only to install a theocratic govt or breaking up Libya into fiefdoms is not really a good solution.

[shaayecanaan]

10. Sorry, missed this conversation

missed this forum, in fact.

I dare say probably the majority of Alawis (about 5 million) in Syria will flee if the regime falls. That is a pretty big wave of refugees. Some of them will try to go to Turkey, some to Iran, probably a fair chunk in Lebanon, none of which either like or want Alawis all that much. Of course, quite a few will be killed.

A part of me says, fuck them, they are the rank and file of the worst regime in the middle east and have rained shit on the Sunnis for years. Its probably only fair that they get a bit in return. But that is only a part of me.

Iraq is not a particularly sectarian or complex society compared to Syria. If Syria goes all out it will make Iraq look like a walk in the park. It will effectively be the Congo of the middle East.

[Douglas Carpenter]

11. that is completely consistent with all that I have heard too

Last edited Fri Jun 22, 2012, 06:51 AM - Edit history (1)

if the Bathist regime in Syria actually collapses I would dare predict that even the hardliners of the U.S. and Israel will in a relatively brief time long for the days of Assad.

[aranthus]

8. I really do wish he was wrong. I want him to be wrong. But he's not. n/t

[azurnoir]

9. I agree and add the US can not police the world

or remake it in its image

[Droidbot]

12. Remember what happened in Libya?

Arming the opposition is not a viable solutIon to this conflict. All that will lead to is more bloodshed. The only way to weaken the regime is for Russia and Iran to back off and to isolate the regime. Without his buddies backing him Assad would have no choice but to go.

[Mosby]

13. I'm concerned that if the West does nothing

not even a no-fly zone Turkey is going to get involved militarily.