There’s been a lot of talk these past weeks about the law
and logic behind the international response to alleged chemical weapons attacks
in Syria. As interesting as that is, I’m
more intrigued by the rationale behind the last 2 ½ years of balking and
half-measures, and whether we, as an international community, have really done
the right thing.
The pertinent question
here is, what is more important, defending the underdog and our shared values,
or saving lives? Instinct tells us that
the sparing of innocent lives should be our first objective, but do we really
take the attitude of General van Molke, who said, "The greatest kindness in war is to bring it to a speedy
conclusion,”? If the international
community really believed this, and viewed the conflict in the most utilitarian
sense, the war could have been ended years ago with a considerably lower human
cost. It would have simply meant backing
away, and leaving Syria to self-determine- essentially, letting the opposition
lose.
Photo credit: Freedom House |
We should be careful not to give American assistance to the
rebels too much credit- the
first CIA funded weapons only reached the opposition a week ago, so clearly
it isn’t U.S. lethal aid that has prolonged the conflict. But without non-lethal aid from the United
States and weapons from Turkey and the Gulf states, rebellion would have likely been untenable
for the opposition, and thousands of lives may have been spared in what would
have been a swiftly-quelled rebellion.
Instead it
appears that the international community has been unable to stomach appeasement,
or to encourage those whom we have deemed allies within the opposition to
agree to “terms less favorable than those which [they] can claim in justice.” Our short-sighted strategy of nudging the
opposition just enough to make them competitive while bickering about who among
them is worthy of backing has
prolonged the war and undoubtedly cost lives.
We also cannot neglect to consider which post-war power
structure would be (or would have been) more stable, and ultimately safer for
Syrian civilians. At this point,
regardless of who comes out on top we can expect to see retribution against the
losers; atrocities on both sides have shown us both a capacity for violence and
a growing normlessness. It’s difficult
to argue, however, that the unseating of Assad would pave the way for a stable
Syria and fewer lost lives, at least in the short to medium-term. The established
hierarchy within the Ba’athist regime maintained order for 40 years, and is
more equipped to do so than any messy coalition of rebel factions, among which
fighting has intensified in past months.
The most rudimentary of lessons from Iraq should be that regime change is not
a panacea, and that sometimes order and consistency are preferable to freedom
of expression.
While international opinion on the issue remains murky,
recent developments have made the American answer abundantly clear. America considers its principles to be its only
true allies. The U.S. is inclined to put ideas before people, and democracy and freedom before human security.
No comments:
Post a Comment