Last month, President Obama addressed the United Nations about several issues around the world. A highlight of his speech involved Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria, saying, “Realism requires a managed transition away from Assad and to a new leader.” [ref]Obama Barack, “Remarks by President Obama to the United Nations General Assembly,” The White House, Sept. 28, 2015, accessed Oct. 21, 2015.[/ref] Assad is a war criminal, and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and his eventual fall from power is not only necessary but also inevitable. The removal of Assad as the central goal of American policy in Syria may be a moral victory for the Obama Administration, but it is not pragmatic. The idea of a non-sectarian, unified Syria is no longer possible. America has two options with regard to the Syrian civil war, either accept Assad or accept that Syria will be partitioned. Radical groups like the Islamic State taking control of Damascus would be worse than if Assad stays for the short-term. [ref]Fareed Zakaria, “In Syria, Whose Side Is the United States On?” Oct. 1, 2015, accessed Oct. 21, 2015.[/ref] The vendetta is how can America continue limited military operations in Syria designed to protect American national security while limiting the harm done to Syrian civilians.
The modern Syrian state was created as a French mandate after World War I. France established the Alawites, a religious minority group to which Assad belongs, as the ruling regime in Syria. The French knew that empowering a minority regime would allow France to maintain dominance. Resentment toward the Alawites exploded in 2011 as Assad oppressed protestors inspired by the Arab Spring. The Syrian civil war is likely to last over ten years, with rival factions shifting allegiances. There are currently over one thousand different militias in Syria, composed of seven different religious and ethnic groups. The Alawites know that if Assad falls they will be massacred, so they are determined to fight to the bitter end. Even after the Alawite regime falls, the one thousand militias will begin fighting one another for dominance. The United States government and the American people must decide if they want to get into the middle of this with a ground invasion.[ref] Fareed Zakaria, “Fareed Zakaria: Stay Out Of Syria,” YouTube: The Dish, June 7, 2013, accessed on Oct. 21, 2015[/ref] Potential outcomes of the civil war can be seen in Lebanon and Iraq. At the same time Syria was established, France and Britain installed the Christians in Lebanon and the Sunnis in Iraq as minority regimes. Over the past thirty years, violent civil wars have been waged in those countries to overthrow these regimes. When the United States toppled Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime in Iraq, civil war between the different groups developed, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
There are not many options with acceptable outcomes in Syria. The United States funded a moderate Syrian army that proved to be a failure. America’s most capable allies in the country, the Kurds, “are geographically confined to the north, and there is no prospect that they could or would spearhead an offensive south to Damascus. The Kurds don’t want to run Syria. They want to protect their homeland.” [ref]David French, “Rand Paul Is Right: Say No to a Syrian No-Fly Zone,” National Review Online, Oct. 14, 2015, accessed Oct. 21, 2015.[/ref] The five permanent members of the UN Security Council: America, Britain, France, Russia, and China, could partition Syria to end the violence, but this would only delay the looming civil war and require American ground forces in Syria. It is doubtful the American government or people are interested in governing Syrian territory and being responsible to protect this population. [ref] Fareed Zakaria, “In Syria, Whose Side Is the United States On?” Fareed Zakaria. Oct. 1, 2015, accessed on Oct. 21, 2015.[/ref] However, while the United States should not send ground forces into Syria, it should maintain its military strikes. Instead of removing Assad, the main American goal should be to defeat his primary enemy, the Islamic State. ISIS is just as abusive toward human rights as the Assad regime and is a greater threat to American national security and regional stability. America’s strategy against the Islamic State does not need to be discussed here, but destroying ISIS would allow the region it occupies to be brought under non-radical control. The US could then seek to broker an agreement between the major parties that would allow the violence to stop, in which, “A federal structure could then be built between the Alawite and Sunni portions. If the Alawite regions become part of a Syrian federal system, a context will exist for the role of Mr. Assad, which reduces the risks of genocide or chaos leading to terrorist triumph.”[ref] Henry Kissinger, “A Path Out of the Middle East Collapse,” WSJ, Oct. 16, 2015, accessed Oct. 21, 2015.[/ref] Such a solution is unlikely to occur, and America’s role will likely be limited as the Syrian civil war plays out. America should continue its campaign against ISIS and other national security threats, as well as aid the Kurds and moderate forces. Additionally, America should deliver humanitarian aid by helping refugees escape to the United States, Britain, Turkey, and Jordan, and set up non-combat zones within Syria. As saddening as it may be, Syria may never be a unified country again. It is not America’s role or within its power to build a multi-sectarian, democratic Syria.
Take Action:
Take action by signing the petition to stay out of Syria.
