It’s time to support the Syrian opposition

We should try to flip Assad and make him a Mubarack. At this point that would be his ticket out. He is a sworn enemy of Israel and has aided the Iranians in destabilizing Iraq and Hizbollah with their attacks on Israel. I think controlled chaos in the short term is desirable if you are thinking about knocking off Iran in the next year. With Assad’s Syria, Iran stands a better chance at retaliating against Israel and the West. With a deposed Assad that becomes more difficult for Iran. In the long run, we have to be sure to have some type of influence with the opposition. Supporting them now is the only way to have a prayer in that regard. So, I don’t see the harm in a no-fly zone and the end of another Middle Eastern dictatorship.

BTW, I didn’t support Mubarak’s ouster (and by extension the Libyan intervention) because I believed things could get worst. But, I do support the ouster of regimes in countries in the Middle East where the environment really can’t get any worst (Iraq, Iran and Syria) if it serves our long term interest.

milemarker2020 on November 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Seth Halpern on November 24, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I don’t know how things can get worst in Syria, if we do get involved. 30,000 have been killed already and unless you can get and empower Assad (which would mean essentially supporting his suppression and more killing) then you are left with whether or not you support the opposition or remain neutral. The problem with the neutral position is that you will either see Assad and Iran empowered and more emboldened by destroying the opposition or you will see the opposition without our aid depose Assad and accomplish this with the assistance of even more radical forces than Assad!

I wished we had presidential leadership that would have intervened earlier to have more influence with the opposition. But with the opposition not making much headway and our NATO ally Turkey being drawn into this conflict, not to mention spillover into Iraq, we can’t stand pat. Syria is receiving arms from Russia and Iran and those are not exactly the actors we want to have even greater influence in the Middle East.

I know we are war weary but I don’t think Condi is asking for ground forces. Syria is a situation of a higher order of importance than Libya, yet this president cannot bring himself to do the minimum he did in Libya, which had no strategic importance for the US. Syria, on the other hand, has plenty (Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, etc), so I think we should act or it will get worst if we take a neutral position (Obama’s stance).

milemarker2020 on November 24, 2012 at 11:29 AM

tommy71 on November 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

I don’t think anyone is saying there are easy answers in the Middle East. But, I disagree with you about the choice being one between radical islamist and a dictatorship. In that case, you obviously support the dictatorship (Egypt and Iran back in the 1970s). However, in Iraq we didn’t have that happen and in Libya (which I did not support intervention) the problem there is really our lack of follow on support for the nascent government there, which is not a radical government.

In Syria, the radicals are only gaining traction because there is a power vacuum. Besides, even in the situation in Egypt, the US still needs to protect its strategic interest, which are plentiful in this situation. Assad at this point is a destabilizing force. If he brutally suppresses the opposition, it will cost hundred of thousand of lives and cause the exodus of hundred of thousands into the surrounding nations like Turkey and Iraq. It will embolden his regime and give more influence to Iran and Russia who would have supplied Assad with the means to suppress the opposition.

I know it sucks that this becomes our problem. But, if we ignore it or remain neutral, which is Obama’s position by the way, then we open ourselves to risks that can come back to bite us.

I don’t read Condi advocating a wider war or nation building. I think at most we should support a no-fly zone and arming the opposition. We should help establish a new government and if that government doesn’t ally itself with Iran (doubtful), then even it despises Israel, we can hopefully exercise some influence like we did with Mubarak and Egypt. Without supporting this opposition, we will be a spectator to events and maybe drawn into a bigger conflict that Condi hinted at with a bolder Iran and Russian arms flooding the Middle East.

milemarker2020 on November 24, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Seth Halpern on November 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Those are just your options Seth. You can try to flip Assad (which Obama tried to do), you can support the opposition (which Obama is relunctant to do) or you can be neutral (Obama’s current position). All of these have consequences. My only point is a Syrian intervention would serve the strategic interest of the US unlike the Libyan adventure.

Now, I am not saying that this is the right thing to do, but I am not naive enough to think doing nothing is not going to have consequences.

Doing nothing means more Russian arms, more Iranian arms, more radicals populating the opposition, more civilian deaths, more dislocation, more destabilization in the surrounding nations. Yes, you can conclude that all of these consequences are acceptable compared to an intervention. That’s an analysis that should be done, because the fallout from doing nothing may cost more in the long run than the consequences of doing something.

Basically, my point is that Condi’s suggestion is not so outrageous, because you can see a strategic interest being served. Those are securing Syrian wmd, deposing a dictator allied to our biggest adversary in the Middle East, stopping the flow of Russian arms, curbing Russian influence in the Middle East (remember they wanted to reopen a Cold War port in Syria), ending Syrian support to Hizbollah, protecting both Iraq and Turkey from destabilization.

Now you are right to ask, do we have the competence in place to execute either a flip of Assad or a coherent strategy to depose Assad and not replace him with a more radical regime. If we don’t, then we should remain neutral, but we should be very concerned about the state of our nation’s defense, intelligence and diplomatic capabilities.

milemarker2020 on November 24, 2012 at 12:23 PM