3 Reasons For (and Against) Additional US Involvement in Syria

Before we get started, it's important to emphasize that this post is on the merits of additional US involvement in Syria. Which is to say that, for as long as the proponents of intervention have been voicing their arguments, the United States has undertaken a policy of intervention--just not always the kind that will make the nightly news or present a sexy talking point. The Obama administration's policy has long been to provide real support to international efforts for refugees of the conflict. Similarly, opposition groups have received some amount of support, though never sufficiently to their liking. The United States and its allies around the world have cracked down on the Assad regime in a big way, stopping short only where doing so would violate international law or unduly endanger its own forces.

Here, we look at three reasons for and three against expanding the extant involvement in the Syrian civil war--whether it takes the form of anything from a "no fly zone" to an outright overthrow. Though there are a few good arguments for more action, I stand rather solidly as an opponent.

Reasons For

I. The Humanitarian Crisis

A UN refugee camp on Syria's borders

No one can dispute the dire humanitarian situation faced by the average Syrian. Hundreds of thousands have been forced from their homes in the competing wakes of the clashing armed actors. Once idyllic boulevards have been cluttered with dust, debris, and shattered dreams. Those in the camps deserve a chance to make a new life for themselves, but have no opportunity to do so until the fighting stops or another state welcomes them into their own borders on a more permanent basis.

This reason can be taken both as a moral one and one more pragmatic--in the sense that thousands of refugees in neighboring countries are an economic dead-weight and political powder keg. Syria's neighbors share some of its diverse ethnic and sectarian character, so fear the boost to tensions of that nature.

II. The Regional Balance of Power

A reprehensible depiction of Iranian regional influence

With Saddam Hussein long forgotten, the government of Iran has regained its prominence as primary "villain" in the Middle East--or so many proponents of intervention have argued in the past decade. Syria's close ties to the Iran are indisputable and some would characterize those ties as those between puppet and puppeteer. Indeed, Iranian support to the Lebanese political party/guerrilla group Hezbollah and Palestinian organization of the same genre, Hamas, is widely acknowledged, though the particulars disputed.

Proponents of an intervention in Syria are often those who have long been proponents of an intervention in Iran as a response to that country's contentious nuclear energy program and its anti-American/Israeli rhetoric. Proponents assert that toppling the Assad regime would be a major blow to Iranian influence in the region and set the stage for finally dealing with the Iran problem--whether through more stringent isolation of the government or outright military action.

III. American Credibility

McCain (ardent proponent of ambiguous "intervention")  vs the line-drawer

On August 20, 2012, President Obama laid out a "red line" on the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Of course, that red line was nowhere near as clearly stated as proponents of intervention have since made it out to be, as documented by ABC News. Still, whether the line was one of "chemical weapons use prompts immediate use" or not, many around the world certainly heard it that way. Some argue that the US should act now, even berating Mr. Obama for not announcing his intentions immediately (despite the fact that American and allied forces are now moving into position for potential action).

There are two kinds of credibility supposedly at stake here: 1) America's 'ultimatum' on the Syrian regime (and that of Iran, by proxy); and 2) the international consensus against the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Further Reading:

• Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations: "America Must Respond to the Atrocities in Syria" by conducting cruise missile strikes against selected targets and increasing material aid to fighters.
• Jonathan Mercer on how game theory logically invalidates the concern for reputation.

Reasons Against

I. The Facts on the Ground

Not the type we want ruling Syria

So many words have been wasted promoting the arming of opposition forces in Syria, completely dismissing the fact that those rebel groups favorable to the US are far from dominant in the diverse array of guerrilla organizations. While the Free Syrian Army gets talked up by proponents, a large number of fighters operate under extreme Islamist groups and even an al Qaeda franchise. The groups are unlikely to mount an effort against the interests of the US or its allies in the region so long as Bashar al Assad so preoccupies them, but giving them anti-air and anti-tank weaponry poses a serious threat to regional stability in the long run. We also must ask ourselves, "Who will take the place of Assad when he's gone?"

Further reading:

• Edward Luttwak's controversial and frank piece in the NYTimes: "In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins".

II. A War of Choice

Do we really want to tack Syria on top of this?

This reason needs few words, but the collective forgetfulness of proponents necessitates it. America only recently pulled its forces out of Iraq and is still looking to do so now. These wars have been profoundly expensive and, ultimately, unnecessary (Iraq from the beginning, Afghanistan from the Surge). Must we burn another heap of money and lives intervening in a conflict to which we can give no positive outcome?

III. Americans Don't Want War

Americans polled on intervention in Syria and chemical weapons use

A president must not always stick to public opinion. Franklin Roosevelt's slow push to get the United States prepared for conflict in the face of strong isolationist sentiment from the public is one great example. Nonetheless, waging an unpopular war is a good way to turn the country against one's party and maybe, just maybe, the masses may have gotten the thing right.

The poll above shows two things, one of which would seem to contradict this point. I say not. On top, in red, polls indicate that the American people have consistently opposed American intervention in Syria over the last year or so. I'd actually count the "not sure"s as against, given that it's something so drastic as going to war, but they didn't for some reason.

On bottom, the percentage that would support intervention in the event of Assad's use of chemical weapons. Here, we see a drastic swing in those who favor military intervention, but I suspect that the average respondent gave little more thought than "chemical weapons are bad" and thus agreed to the vague concept of "intervention". It will be interesting to see in the next few weeks, as things start heating up, what number of Americans will support the country sliding into another unnecessary war.



As usual, my analysis rests on news stories, blogs, and analysis from others, so the degree of separation from what's actually taking place on the ground could be significant at points. With that in mind, make sure you take some time to follow the events in the news.

Further reading/listening:
 Debate: The US Has No Dog in the Fight In Syria (Intelligence Squared US)