There are few things about which we can be certain in the Syrian crisis, but there are some. We can be sure that brutal, unspeakable and unimaginable things are happening on a daily basis, particularly and most distressingly of all to the country’s children. We can also be sure that somehow, someday the war will end.
When it will end is anybody’s guess. How it will do so is a slightly easier to guess at. We know that Bashar al-Assad is militarily strong, thanks to the supply of weapons from Iran and Russia, and soldiers from Lebanon’s Hezbollah. We know that he is utterly determined to defeat what he calls “the terrorists”. And we witnessed the effect of that in al-Qusayr, where government and Hezbollah forces not only defeated the “rebels” but all-but destroyed the town.
That is likely to be repeated in the much more significant city of Aleppo. It will be bloodier and more brutal, but Assad’s victory will, to him, be all the sweeter for it.
So Assad has the upper hand, by a long way. His opponents are disparate and therefore less well organised. They don’t agree on tactics, strategy or goals. And they are woefully underarmed.
Given that, and the seeming failure of talks about the talks proposed to take place in Geneva (Assad, unsurprisingly, doesn’t feel in any rush to talk, and even less to engage in compromise), the safest bet has to be on an Assad military victory.
We can also guess at what that “victory” would look like. It would be engineered by Iran and Hezbollah (islamist extremists, by the way), leaving Assad a puppet of those groups – some of the most reactionary voices in the Middle East. The effect that would have in Lebanon, never mind further afield, is barely worth thinking about. We also know that just winning won’t be enough for Assad. That would leave too much risk of a rematch in the future. As tyrannical generals from Rome onwards have known, there is only one way to secure victory: kill your enemies in sufficient numbers that they no longer present a risk. The 100,000 currently dead will be a fraction of a much grimmer total.
Most likely, then, that is what the “natural” course of the Syrian war will look like. The question we are obliged to ask is whether we let it run that course, perhaps hoping , vainly, that something happens to mean slightly fewer deaths, and a bit less brutality.
Or should we do something to try to shift that course? I think we should.
For some reason, the main proposal for western intervention is to supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons to fight back, to even things up a little. Like many others I have my doubts about this. There is a good chance that it won’t make much difference: Russia and Iran are always going to be less cautious and more free in supplying Assad with weapons. The imbalance is likely to continue. There is also a risk that the weapons end up, ultimately, in the hands of Al-Qaeda supporters in Al Nusrah, one of groups of fighters we collectively and loosely call the “rebels”.
There are better options. In particular, action to ground Assad’s deadly air force would be a significant intervention. This has been the government’s main force of choice both to target opposition soldiers and to crush morale through indiscriminate air raids on civilians. The imposition of a no-fly zone, starting with the shelling of the air strips where the planes take off and land, would be more effective and less risky than the supply of weapons.
One of the cliches which is often used about conflicts like that in Syria is that “the only real solution is a political one”. That is untrue, or rather it is disingenuous. There is currently no prospect of a political solution in Syria. Assad is on too much of a roll to be interested. While he’s defeating his enemies so easily, why would he do a deal? In a year’s time, perhaps he might be interested. Once he has killed another 100,000 people.
Only if the prospect of an outright military victory for both sides seems either too remote or too costly will a true political solution be possible. And only through intervention by the United States, United Kingdom and other western states will the balance in Syria be tipped towards stalemate.
It is not quite true to say that holding up our hands and saying “it’s all too complicated” results in an Assad victory: the proximate cause is the support he receives from his allies. But it is true to say that by standing by and doing nothing we will most likely allow that victory to happen, with all the death and destruction that goes with it.
William Hague is right to say that the Syrian war is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. For liberals, the time has surely come to say that we can no longer stand idly by.
* Nick Thornsby is a day editor at Lib Dem Voice.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Full slate of Lib Dems in council by-elections
Getting things done - West Port #dundeewestend
Payback time
The Joy of Six 1274
Gasping Local Government.
The Chagos Islands, Mauritius and the ICJ
Honouring the Real Thing and launching Black History Month in Liverpool
Russell
Peter Martin
Peter Davies
Dave Tate
36 Comments
A no-fly zone must be imposed by the UN and Russia have said they are fundamentally against one.
I have no illusions about the foreign policy decisions that are sometimes taken by western leaders but Putin’s actions in assisting the Assad regime and vetoing UN action lead me to only one conclusion; he is truly evil.
Stop meddling in other people’s countries. The government of Syria is no business of any British politician. Now is not the time for ‘us’ to ‘intervene’ and there never will be a time.
Yes Chris because the “government of Syria” represents the people of Syria doesn’t it.
Nick,
I would fundamentally agree with your analysis and conclusions. Bashar Assad has achieved the seemingly impossible in getting Syria expelled from both the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic States. When you have not only the muslim brotherhood dominated Syrian National Coalition, but also regional powers like Egypt and Turkey Iin addition to the Gulf states) calling for a Western imposed no-fly zone – it is difficult to see why this course of action is not actively pursued over arming the rebels.
The objective of any intervention has, in my opinion, to be firmly grounded in the UN ‘responsibiity to protect.’ In the absence of a security council resolution, I belive that Turkey (supported by Nato) should seek to establish a humanitarian safe zone in Northern Syria that would allow the resettlement of refugees in Syrian territory and protection of the popultion there. Jordan should similarly establish a zone around Deraa in the South backed by US/Egyptian/Saudi air power and patriot missile defences.
Just as somehow, someday the war will end, so too must a political solution of some sort arise. The leading scholar on Syria,Joshua Landis. writes in Obama Owes Syrians and Americans a Vision of Syria’s Future that Obama must base his strategy around three potential outcomes:
1. The one state solution: Preserving Syria as a unitary state by keeping the country one. This means supporting the Sunni Arab opposition with enough weapons and backing to conquer Hama, Homs and Damascus, as well as occupy both the Alawite and Kurdish regions. The same result could be reached by a political compromise (Geneva), but a negotiated solution seems unlikely. Without a foreign occupation of Syria to impose a solution on all sides, no incentive exists for either the Assad regime or opposition militias to make painful concessions that could diminish their authority.
The Taif Accords that ended the Lebanese Civil War, and are often pointed to as a model for Geneva, were agreed to by the disputing Lebanese parties largely because Syria occupied Lebanon and disarmed the various militias — that is all except for Hizbullah, which continues to defy central authority today. Without Syrian boots on the ground, the Lebanese militias would have been unlikely to lay down their arms or agreed to living under a common government, even one as weak and dysfunctional as the present Lebanese government.
2. The two state solution: Divide the country into two states, which corresponds to the present reality. This means simply giving the rebels enough backing to stop the Syrian Army’s offensive in the north and empowering them to fully capture Aleppo, Deir al-Zur and their surrounding countryside. Of course, the rebel forces are made up of over 1,000 militias. This means that the rebel held north is anything but stable and offers only a rough patchwork security for those who live there. What is more, big hunks of the North are presently ruled by al-Qaida affiliated groups. Thus, Obama has set the US up for a two front war. One against Assad in the South and another against Jabhat al-Nusra and its allies in the East.
3. The Three state solution: Divide the country into three, following the ethnic lines of the major combatant groups. This is the Balkan solution, pursued by President Clinton when he cut Yugoslavia in to 7 states. This would mean creating an Alawite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish state. Such a solution would be opposed by the rebels and much of the international community, but it would recognize the difficulties in putting Syria back together again.
I understand that Germany, China, Brazil & Russia have all resiled from their support for R2P, which as far as I can make out is a doctrine invented by the “west” to enable intervention inside other countries, contrary to the UN charter which says not.
As for the no-fly zone . Libya had low quality SAM capabilities. I believe that Syria’s is capable of taking out an aircraft at Akrotiri in Cyprus ( the likely air base for such a Western intervention ) a few minutes after take off.
So, practically, how would you do it? High level strategic bombing from Stealth bombers to take out all the airfields?
And Libya has been such a success, no?
What I’d really like to know is why Cameron and Obama want to intervene. I don’t believe they have a moral reason, so what’s the realpolitik behind it?
Jenny,
Heads of state and government agreed to the following text on the Responsibility to Protect in the Outcome Document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly in September 2005
Para 138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.
Para 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.
In February 2011, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1970, which recalled Libya’s “responsibility to protect”, referring the situation to the International Criminal Court and imposing financial sanctions as well as an arms embargo.As the threat to populations persisted in spite of these non-military measures, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1973 in March 2011, which called for the enforcement of a no-fly zone and for “all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat or attack…. while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form.”
Five Member States – China, Russia, Brazil, India and Germany – abstained, allowing Resolution 1973 to pass without a veto. While the authorization of a no-fly zone was the first time the Security Council has implemented a military response to protect populations in a non-consenting state, this was likely due to the influence that regional organizations had in supporting stronger measures, notably the League of Arab States and the Gulf Cooperation Council. That Member States prioritization of the protection of civilians from mass crimes reflects a historic embrace of the RtoP principle. Subsequent concerns arose following the intervention in Libya. Many UN Member States and international and regional organizations voiced their concern over how the use of force was operationalized, but many others particularly noted the necessity to apply RtoP flexibly to ensure that past cases do not inhibit efforts to protect populations in future situations.
Had the West acted earlier, it is possible that intervention might have had a successful outcome, but ,as Boris Johnson has rightly pointed out, it is now far too late (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/10123938/Weve-left-it-too-late-to-save-Syria-this-conflict-can-never-be-won.html ) Just because we were relatively lucky in Libya (mainly because Russia chose not to become involved) does not mean we should become the world’s policeman. The Syrian conflict has degenerated into a sectarian and civil war, with atrocities committed by both sides. While Assad’s use of chemical weapons may be against international law, morally I see no difference between this and Assad’s using planes and heavy artillery to bomb the rebels. If we didn’t intervene then, when the the rebels seemed to be the “good guys”, why should we intervene now when both sides have become as bad as each other? The Americans poured military assistance into Afghanistan to support the Jihadists when the Russians were in charge, and look how that turned out.
Just another thought. Six weeks ago I imagine that those who now support Western intervention were happy to see Turkey under Erdogan providing tacit support to the Syrian rebels. Presumably now they’re supporting the protesters in Turkey against the elected Islamic dictatorship which is Erdogan’s ultimate ambition.
Yes, let’s intervene!
I think we should land Nick Thoseby , Liam Fox and William Hague on the beach at Lattakia. Immediately!
Glad to see this being written, Nick.
We (the international community) keep saying ‘never again’ every time another genocide is committed, in Rwanda, in Bosnia, or wherever it may be. What’s happening in Syria may not quite meet the legal definition of genocide, but with well over 100,000 dead, well over a million officially registered refugees and millions more unregistered and/or displaced inside Syria, no one can doubt that this is a humanitarian catastrophe, caused by the actions of humans. If (and that’s a big if) we can do something to help stop it, then I think we should.
You’re right that an Assad victory looks increasingly likely (if still a long way off), and that any victory will involve many, many more deaths in the process, followed by many more as the regime re-consolidates its grip.
The reason I support providing arms rather than a no fly zone is just that I think it’s less complicated, more likely to achieve its aims, less risky and can contribute to helping the rebels become better organised and better disciplined. I don’t oppose a no fly zone outright, but without international support it would be very risky, and would invite the regime to retaliate directly against its neighbours. The goal – grounding the syrian bombers – is the right one however.
I believe that supplying anti-aircraft weapons to the moderate rebel groups (and there are some – they’re not all jabhat an-nusra) will allow them to build up their own credibility by taking responsibility for defending the civilian population. It’s crazy to be worrying about our weapons getting into the wrong hands: the wrong hands already have weapons, and capture more every time they over-run a regime base.
The least bad way out of this is to help a moderate opposition coalition win. Not simple, but not impossible either. Tipping the balance may make negotiations viable, but right now, they’re nothing more than a distraction.
Finally, military support to the rebels should come with support in the form of food, medicines, fuel, blankets for the winter, etc. Let the rebels become a government in waiting by giving them the tools they need to become one. There are already civilian political structures in liberated areas – revolutionary and town councils, working with military councils, etc. There is plenty to build on if we only choose to look. Rather than look away.
“Putin’s actions in assisting the Assad regime and vetoing UN action lead me to only one conclusion; he is truly evil.”
Putin’s actions in assisting the Assad regime and vetoing UN action lead me to a different conclusion; he has the whip hand. Why should he let the West replace his puppet state with a Western puppet state?
If we care about the Syrian people, we must stop condemning Putin for the carnage in Syria, while turning a blind eye to Western responsibility for greater carnage in Iraq.
We must talk to Putin, and find a solution which he can accept. If that means replacing a murderous Russian puppet with a less murderous Russian puppet, so be it.
No fly zones, or arming jihadis, all amount to an escalation toward a proxy war with Russia. Let’s not go there.
Let’s not be under any illusion that the rebels are some democratic, secular minded people. The whole purpose of the Arab Spring was never about progress. It was about legitimising Islamic extremism. While there was no civil war in Egypt, electing an fundamentalist sect into government was the price they’ve had to pay.
To arm the so called rebels is to endorse Al Qaeda.
Nick Clegg has been speaking about the dangers of intervention on LBC radio Nick Clegg warns over Syria intervention saying:
“We have taken a number of steps. We work very closely, and will continue to particularly with the French and the Americans, because we have got to do this as an international community. But at the same time we don’t want to get embroiled in a military conflict where we can’t necessarily be the authors of its solution.”
The comments on the article are not terribly edifying, but there is an occassional lucid and well articulated post such as this one by a Syrian reader:
It is sad to see the level of cynicism on this page. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when the the subject at hand involves the tragic loss of so many lives, there is a moral duty for everyone to at least base that opinion on facts which takes some effort and some impartiality and intellectual honesty. Everyone knows that Assad inherited an illegitimate presidency from his father, the ruthless dictator who ruled Syria by sheer terror; however he put on a reformist face for a while and people believed him at first, and back then he would have probably gotten more than 50% in a free election, but he was too stupid to do that and insisted on repeating his father’s 98% results. Once he firmed his grip on the country, the reformist mask fell and the Mukhabarat was busy, back to business as usual kidnapping and torturing people often to death. But what eventually brought the country to a boiling point the obscene stealing of the country’s wealth by him and his family and clan, his cousin Rami Makhloof owned 60% of Syria’s economy.
In March 2011 a group of schoolboys in the city of Dar’aa ages 8-14 wrote anti government slogans on a wall (same slogans they saw in Tunisia and Egypt) another cousin of the president (Hafez Makhloof) the head of military security in the city, arrested and tortured the boys including pulling their fingernails. Demonstrations started in the city and quickly spread to the rest of the country. Peaceful and almost poetic in many places, with roses, bottled water and pastries given to the soldiers (all documented, look it up) demonstrators on the streets on Fridays totaled in the several millions all over the country demanding the fall of the regime, which responded by escalating violence eventually mowing people down with machine guns in the streets, kidnapping tens of thousands and using systematic rape of women, children and men as a weapon of intimidation. Some people started resisting while the world watched and did nothing. Many Syrians warned that the inaction is going to have a radicalizing effect on the population and will bring unwanted outsiders to fight their proxy wars in Syria, and it happened, between 3-5 thousand jihadis, 15 thousand Hizbollah, thousands of Iraqi Shiaa supporting Assad (Abul Fadl Alabbas brigade) and an unknown number of Iran’s revolutionary Guard. The world’s inaction created this situation and the world is now using the results of it’s inaction to justify more inaction while Syrians die brutally. The jihadis are not welcome in most places in syria, and just a few days ago there was a demonstration against them in Raqqa, the first Syrian city to be liberated from the Assad regime.
To take the actions of one idiot pretending to eat a part of his enemy and smear it on the entire Syrian people is disingenuous at best. What is worse desecrating a corpse (which NATO soldiers seem to be experts at) or killing, raping disappearing hundreds of thousands of people at the hands of Assad and his international backers?
I am a liberal and opposed to war but for the sake of everything that is holy tell me how are you going to stop a mass murderer. The Syrian people know him well and they know if he succeeds in crushing their uprising, hundreds of thousands more will be tortured to death in the Mukhabarat dungeons, so the cost of stopping is even higher than the horrific price they are paying now. The Syrian people including myself have lost faith in humanity for generations to come, so say what you will, do what you will. If death is our destiny, we might as well die with dignity
@Joe Burke: “This is the Balkan solution, pursued by President Clinton when he cut Yugoslavia in to 7 states.”
Why does Joshua Landis say something so risible? He is not so young as to be unable to personally remember the period. He should know that Yugoslavia broke into its component states primarily in the period 1989-1992, during which the President of the United States was George H. W. Bush. Clinton did not become President until 1993. However, the breakup was due to internal Yugoslav tensions and stresses, which had been growing since Tito’s death in 1980. If American, NATO, or UN activity had any effect on the way in which the Yugoslav breakup developed (it could hardly have been halted) it was through inaction and failure to intervene early in the conflict, rather than through aggressive intervention.
I expect that lib-dem’s supporting this motion, and even those that don’t see this particular crisis as justifying intervention, will thoroughly support the power projection ambitions of the SDSR………………….. including the budget required to make good on those ambitions?
The trigger happy interventions on here could do with reading Patrick Cockburn’s annalysis in last week’s Independent on Sunday http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/only-an-allout-war-can-depose-assad-anything-less-is-like-being-halfpregnant-8660482.html?origin=internalSearch
Cockburn’s article would be more convincing if it didn’t conclude with such furious hand-waving.
“The Syrian people know him well and they know if he succeeds in crushing their uprising, hundreds of thousands more will be tortured to death in the Mukhabarat dungeons, so the cost of stopping is even higher than the horrific price they are paying now. The Syrian people including myself have lost faith in humanity for generations to come, so say what you will, do what you will. If death is our destiny, we might as well die with dignity” – quote from the Syrian quoted above.
Doing nothing is a conscious action as much as supplying anti-aircraft and other military munitions to the Free Syrian Army – but with a much higher probability of doing nothing. The latter will lead to the drawn-out but inexorable victory of Assad (a regime thenceforth ever more beholden to Hezbollah, Russia) and with major retributions, effectively killing everyone remotely connected to the rebellion. The first to be wiped out under such a denouement would be the sort of rebels we all want to support. Yes the rebels would be crushed, but bitterness and resentment would linger. We can guarantee that any future rebel uprising would not be based on liberal and democratic principles. it would certainly hold the west correctly in low regard. Doing nothing signs the death warrant for the people we most would like to see provide a legitimate and principled government for Syria. On this, as a Lib Dem, I align myself with Liam Fox and William Hague., with Jonathan Brown here (I would like a no-fly zone as well along with Nick Thorsby, but for the same legal (UN resolution), practical (long-range effectiveness of Syrian air defences) and the risks of retaliation to border countries, it is probably not practical).
Apologies – I missed out three critical word in caps.
Doing nothing is a conscious action as much as supplying anti-aircraft and other military munitions to the Free Syrian Army – but with a much higher probability of DOING GOOD THAN doing nothing.
Snagglepus … sounds like I will end up on the beach in Lattakia as well. I never thought that I would be closer to Liam Fox and William Hague (on this issue) than the majority view in my own party!
No one here has yet mentioned the Melanie Phillips solution. bomb Iran now! 🙁
Syrian rebels have recently received new weapons that could “change the course of the battle” against the Syrian regime, according to a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army Syria rebels say now have ‘game-changing’ weapons. FSA media and political coordinator spokesman Louay Muqdad said.the “Friends of Syria” group of countries that support the rebels is expected to announce in Doha on Saturday that it will arm the opposition,
I am not sure how UK participation in arming of rebel groups would have any significant impact over and above what the USA and other middle-eastern countries are already supplying in terms of arms. As long as Assad retains the support of a significant proportion of the population, which he will so long as a radical islamic threat exists in Syria, all that can be achieved through arms supplies is a military stalemate that lowers the intensity of the fighting, (if not the scope) and a stand-off between regional powers.
What the UK can and should be doing in my view is seeking to bring about an end to this conflict as quickly as possible and protection of the civilian population as long as the fighting continues.
David Allen comments above “We must talk to Putin, and find a solution which he can accept. If that means replacing a murderous Russian puppet with a less murderous Russian puppet, so be it.” I agree. There is no possibility of a UN securiry council resolution to use military intervention and that leaves the question of legality of actions to be addessed.
Rosa Brooks, law professor at Georgetown University, writing on the issue in Foreign Policy magazine So You Want to Intervene in Syria Without Breaking the Law? concludes:
In a 1973 article reflecting on the bloodbath surrounding Bangladeshi efforts to become independent from Pakistan, legal scholars Thomas Franck and Nigel Rodley argued that military intervention for humanitarian reasons “belongs in the realm not of law but of moral choice, which nations, like individuals, must sometimes make.” Forty years later, there’s still not much more to be said.
The UK needs to make a moral choice as to how best it can legitimately aid in protecting the Syrian population from the ravages of this conflict. That means suborning of geo-political strategic interests to the humanitarian imperative and a clear focus on ‘responsibility to protect.’
“Let’s not be under any illusion that the rebels are some democratic, secular minded people. The whole purpose of the Arab Spring was never about progress. It was about legitimising Islamic extremism.” Neil, you are so wrong. You can find thousands of videos of demonstrations all over Syria, each with thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people calling for democracy, unity, freedom, etc. Of course there are extremists on the rebel side – not all of them foreign fighters either – but to tar all of the opposition with the same brush is to say all American soldiers were comfortable by with the torture factory in Abu Ghraib, Iraq.
I’m not against talking with Russia and Iran. Indeed, I think we should be doing it. But let’s not delude ourselves. They both understand what’s going on: their ally will only survive by killing hundreds of thousands more Syrians. They’ve showed that they’re willing to see this happen. Assad declined to negotiate when he had the opportunity for an ‘honourable’ exit, but he knows very well that for him it’s victory or death.
We should also not kid ourselves about the Syrians themselves. Why on earth would they support any deal that lead to their mass murder? That is all that is on offer, and all that can conceivably come out of proposed peace talks. Unless the balance of power changes.
Supplying weapons to the moderate opposition groups is not guaranteed to bring a lovely, peaceful, prosperous , liberal and democratic state. But it’s the best chance Syria has of salvaging some sort of inclusive country with a modicum of peace.
Supplying weapons has a very real chance of changing the balance of power. For proof of that you only need to look at the months of rebel success and advances that were turned back by the running out of ammunition and the arrival of Hezbollah’s few thousand (perhaps) fighters on the scene. If the rebels could defend themselves from Assad’s aircraft, they’d have a very real chance of defeating Assad’s militia allies.
Changing the balance of power might lead to a rebel victory, and/or it might lead to a situation in which Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and even the Assad regime feel that they have an incentive to negotiate. Right now, they have NONE whatsoever, other than an excercise in distracting the rest of the world from what they are doing.
It is difficult for any of us to make a firm recommendation of what to do, or not to do, none of us have access t o detailed and extensive enough intelligence from Syria. We have become accustomed to thinking of ourselves (the West) as the new Masters of the Universe following the demise of the Soviet Union. Well, we might have been for a brief period but Syria is a reality check I believe, a reminder that we don’t have the power to change the world without trying very hard. Enforcing a no-fly zone alone means air-strikes, cruise-missile strikes, and it means taking casualties in the process. The air defences of Syria include some good equipment (Russian-supplied and maybe Russian – operated, some of our aircraft will get shot down, maybe our air-bases in Cyprus will come under ballistic missile attack (Syria has a lot of these). Similarly setting up a safe zone along the Jordanian and Turkish borders will get us involved in some serious ground fighting. This is not low-intensity counter-insurgency warfare we are talking about. At present I don’t see a workable plan. You cant send people into battle without a plan. We should keep an open mind about the options, I am not against intervention in principle, and we should definitely put a lot of effort and money into humanitarian relief efforts but as for armed intervention? Without a proper plan – no.
@ Steve Coltman, I think you make some excellent points.
Now, although I’m not claiming to be an expert on Syria, I did live there for several years, and have been following events their very closely, so I am claiming to be better informed than many. Of course, I’m not without bias, but what you say is right – we are not ‘all powerful’ any longer, and it is obvious that many of our decision makers are quite ill-informed. (I would say I’m informed enough to have some understanding of just how much I don’t understand.)
However, there’s no reason that Russia or even Iran should necessarily be _that_ much more informed about and in control than say Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
I also think we should keep an open mind to direct intervention, but it would be very risky, and the number of variables mean that I think your fears are well-founded.
The reason I support arming the rebels is not because it’s ‘deniable’, but because it is more predictable, and more likely to bring about positive changes. I don’t just want to give weapons. I want to give the moderate opposition the tools it needs to become a credible alternative to the Assad regime or at least negotiating partner. And while no one should think this would be easy, it’s also not as difficult as many are worried about. The rebels have proved that they can win battles, and can provide effective governance in liberated areas. It’s not uniform, but it’s been shown that it can be done, and over long periods of time.
The regime is now essentially relying upon a few thousand Hezbollah soldiers for it’s battles. That’s not very many, but with the regime’s air power, artillery and some tanks, it’s been enough in recent months. If the rebels could counter the regime’s aerial bombing, there is every reason to think that they could defeat the regime on the ground and – with help consisting not just of weapons, but of medicines, blankets, fuel, food, vaccinations, etc. – establish themselves as a genuine alternative to the regime.
Arming the rebels is risky, of course. But it’s far less risky than invading or trying to enforce a no-fly zone ourselves. And, just as importantly, the risks of doing so should be weighed against the risks of NOT arming the rebels. An Assad victory and post-1991 Saddam style mass purges of the country, a consolidation of a paranoid and bankgrupt regime, likely millions more refugees, a resurgent Hezbollah dominating Lebanon, etc. Doing nothing is VERY risky.
@John Innes you seem to be making a lot of assumptions that the militias are the people ‘we’ would much rather be seeing running Syria.
Stocking up a proxy war with Iran and Russia does nothing to help the majority of Syrians. These are surely the people we should be concened with. Syria needs a political soution not game playing by our and other governments making the fighting even more destructive.
Nick Thornsby in his concluding paragraph states “William Hague is right to say that the Syrian war is the greatest humanitarian crisis of our time. For liberals, the time has surely come to say that we can no longer stand idly by.”
It is on humanitarian intevention and bringing about a ceasefire that we must retain our focus avoiding the mistake of forcing a regime change regardless of the consequences. Grounding all decisions on the basis of ‘responsibility to protect’ is the only effective way we can do that.
Scott Cooper, an American Marine aviator for 20 years who deployed five times to Iraq and twice to Afghanistan recently wrote an opinion piece in the Wahington Post A Syrian no-fly zone is the moral and strategic thing to do
in which he comments:
Those who oppose a no-fly zone cite the risks: Syria has a formidable air-defense network. Policymakers fear the prospect of U.S. pilots being shot down or dragged through the streets of Damascus. Moreover, many contend that a no-fly zone will not solve the conflict. Only by arming the rebels will the tide be turned, they say, and many of those rebels are jihadists with whom we do not want to partner. Critics of a no-fly zone also fear a slippery slope of escalated military involvement that will lead to a quagmire.
These detractors miss the point, which is that a no-fly zone is only part of the solution. Its purpose is not to resolve the conflict but to prevent escalation, protect innocents and provide leverage to negotiations. In essence, a no-fly zone takes away a single tool of violence — the use of aviation — possessed by the oppressor.
A no-fly zone is feasible. Yes, Syria possesses capable air defenses, but they are no match for U.S. air power. I flew missions over Sarajevo; over Pristina, Kosovo; over Nasiriyah and Mosul, Iraq. Not once during any of those air missions did I feel as threatened as I did than when I patrolled the highways of Iraq in a Humvee. We must not lose confidence out of fear by overestimating our opponent’s capabilities.
A no-fly zone will not immediately end the conflict, but neutralizing the Syrian air force will erase one of the regime’s decisive advantages and lead to a major turning point in the conflict. Doing so is not only morally right but also in our strategic interest. The spillover of violence into Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq is already happening. Moreover, in a post-Assad Syria, the opposition will not forget which nations came to its aid. That was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo, and it has been the case throughout the Muslim world during the recent government upheavals. It was also the case in Iraq, until the occupation spiraled downward into a chaotic insurgency that we initially failed to grasp.
A no-fly zone will provide more options in working with the commander of the Free Syrian Army, Gen. Salim Idriss. With established “safe zones,” Syrian rebels could be trained inside Syria. It will open the door for building governance in liberated areas.
A no-fly zone does not address the questions of a major covert-action program and those consequent risks. But it can lessen the slaughter, and it positions the United States on the right side of the conflict, morally and strategically. As Nobel Peace Prize laureate Eli Wiesel eloquently said, “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.” We must take sides and not just pay lip service to a peaceful resolution.
Joe Bourke – thanks for the very long and detailed description of R2P – which seems to me to be entirely consistent with my much shorter take on the topic.
Those who are enthusiastic for western intervention in Syria might benefit from reading http://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/dan-smith/syria-intervention-or-great-power-game
which suggests that the USA would use intervention in Syria and the Syrian people as pawns in a great power game in the Middle East. Possibly not the most beneficial outcome, but remarkably plausible.
Jenny,
I have no doubt that both Russian and American engagement in Syria, as well as that of regional and European powers, is and will be firmly centered on their respective strategic interests in the region. However, the responsibility to protect is a United Nations initiative consisting of a set of principles, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a right, but a responsibility. R2P focuses on preventing and halting Mass Atrocity Crimes and based on three “pillars”.
1. A state has a responsibility to protect its population from mass atrocities;
2. The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility;
3. If the state fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions.or military intervention as a last resort.
In the international community R2P is a norm, not a law, however it is grounded in international law.. The authority to intervene militarily rests solely with United Nations Security Council and the General Assembly, without which there can be no military intervention in the sovereigh territory of Syria.
The absence of a security council resolution, will not however necessarily preclude the creation of protected safe zones and humanitarian corridors on the borders of Syria, supported by defensive systems based in neighbouring countries and ground security in these zones undertaken by Free Syrian Army personnel.
The UK, with limited strategic interests in Syria, is perhaps in a beter position than many others to mediate competing Great power and regional interests, with a view to developing a consensus approach to Syria around the responsibility to protect doctrine.
JoeBourke
That seems a fair assessment but when it comes to syria I find your Point 2. quite interesting.
It has been clear for a while that the rebels in Syria are being fed weapons by 3rd parties and their proxies (Qatar, Saudi to name a couple)
In what way is supplying weapons to opponents of a recognised Government covered by the international community responsibilities and don’t’ these actions by theocratic dictatorships somewhat undermine the argument put forward for intervention agains the current Government of Syria for failing to protect its peoples.
The chemical weapons arguments are beginning to be undermined by some pronouncements coming out of the UN saying at least some of the nerve gas attacks (if they happened) originated with the rebels and the Russians are issuing counter-claims against the rebels
The whole thing is an awful mess and I cannot see that the Western democracies are actually doing much to help matters by such a blatant taking of sides (as with the Russians on the other side) – the idea that the UK could be a peace broker after the positions been taken by Hague seem far-fetched to me
bcrombie,
The international community can only fulfil its responsibility to assist a state when invited to do so. Todate, Assad has resisted all offers of outside assistance and largely ignored UN/Arab League brokered efforts at mediation.
The legality of supplying arns to rebels seems to be something of a grey area. The Russian foreign minister considers the supply of arms to non-governmental actors as a breach of international agreements on the control of arms supplies. The supply of arms does not appear to constitute an ‘armed attack’ justifying a self-defence response against the supplying state, but may be a ‘Use of force’ by the state furnishing the arms and therefore a contravention of the UN Charter.
In the absence of a UN arms embargo on arms supplies to Syria, there seems little in the way of practical obstacles to arms supplies. Even if an embargo was put in place, covert supplies and arms smuggling would likely continue as they did in Libya. Iran currently ignores the UN sanctions on arms exports from that country.
JoeBourke
and those countries supplying the arms are hardly examples of good governance themselves though are they?
Saudi Arabia invaded another country, Bahrain, at the invite of its Government to help suppress protest and not being unhappy to suppress the rights of their own people. Egypt and Turkey are also having problems with their own protesters. The Turks seem quite happy in killing their own Kurdish minority when required. How happy are they for outside intervention? Are the Israelis happy to allow other countries to supply arms to their own internal enemies or do they frequently threaten them with attack?
I have no time for Assad but I am very. very skeptical of the motives of the Arab League (mostly funded by the oil states) and have felt since the outset the situation has been manipulated from outside Syria.
The only way to stop the bloodshed is to listen to the UN and try to negotiate a settlement but this has to be even-handed and I can understand why Assad is reticent.
Are there any honest brokers in this?
bcrombie,
“The only way to stop the bloodshed is to listen to the UN and try to negotiate a settlement..”
The UN general assembly passed an Arab sponsored resolution last month UN General Assembly approves Syria resolution calling for a political transition in Syria.. The resolution was approved by a vote of 107-12 with 59 abstentions.
It welcomes the establishment of the Syrian National Coalition, the main opposition group, “as effective interlocutors needed for a political transition” and notes “wide international acknowledgment” that the group is the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. It also strongly condemns President Bashar Assad’s regime for its escalating use of heavy weapons and “gross violations” of human rights.
Intervention in a foreign State is never a “clean hands” job. Especially unconvincing is such talk from Britain, , with its blood stained record of treachery in the Middle East, that led (among other bad outcomes) to the most total of all attempted genocides, the denial of the very existence of the Palestinian people although they who were supposed to be under protection..
Britain intervene for democratic moderation? The very idea is an obscenity, and we would find few allies there. As for USA, it hasn’t won a war since 1945, its main aim seeming to be to promote disorder so as to fish in troubled waters and then profiteer out of “reconstruction” and the resources available.
I think both Jonathan Brown and Joe Bourke have made valid comments. I don’t doubt that the US could crush the Syrian air defences and enforce a no-fly zone. Not so confident the European powers could do so without US help. But that would be just a start. A start to what? Iran and Russia have a clear, simple short-term strategic objective and that is to keep Assad in power and in control of as much territory as possible. We need to have a clear political objective and a sound military plan to achieve it but so far, I don’t see it. Much depends on the ‘Moderate’ rebels, the Free Syrian Army. How strong are they? What are their political objectives? How dependent are they on others for support? (and thus how much under the political and religious influence of others are they?). If it was a simple matter of destroying Assad’s air defences and arming a secular (or at least not fundamentalist) Free Syrian Army and watching them fight their way to victory then I might support this. But it’s not that simple. There seems to be a 3-cornered fight involving Jihadists who will presumably not want a moderate Free Syrian Army to win. So how strong are the Jihadists, and could the Free Syrian Army beat them as well?
The #1 rule in war is not to dabble in a half-hearted and uncertain manner. Either stay out or go in a determined and purposeful way.
@Steve, once again you express very sensible concerns. In short, I suggest the plan should be: provide support to the moderate rebel groups (military as well as humanitarian, training, etc.) to help them win the war (thereby bringing it to an end) and in the process establish themselves as a capable and credible alternative to the current regime – and the extremist vision.
If rebel successes make regotiations feasible, then fantastic. We should explore that option if it becomes available (and it would necessarily involve dealing with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah as well as elements of the Assad regime).
I’m not against direct intervention under any circumstances if I thought it would help and if I thought we could actually do it. But never mind the legality, I don’t think parliament would support it even if the UN security council allowed it (which they won’t). And if we did, there are all sorts of risks. I wouldn’t rule it out, except that i think there’s a better, easier, less risky and more likely to work option.
I don’t believe the extremist islamists can win. There just aren’t enough of them, relative to the syrian population, and creating a system of government that has the even the tacit consent of the population is not easy. It’s far harder than fighting an insurgency!
But that doesn’t mean that they can’t cause carnage or cripple the opposition cause.
Many of the non-intervention arguments either claim that ‘there’s nothing we can do’ or pretend that negotiations can solve this crisis. I don’t believe that there is nothing we can do, although if you do, then at least your argument against intervention makes sense. But negotiations clearly can’t work. The Assad regime (and its supporters have no reason to negotiate – and have declined to do so on several occasions already) and the opposition is too fragmented to be able to participate and/or enforce any decisions made. They are also rightly concerned that any agreement that left Assad in power would be suicide. Changing the balance of power might make negotiations worth trying in the future, but they’re worse than a waste of time now. They’re merely a show meant to convince us that ‘we’re trying something’.
I’ve written more about what and how I think we should proceed in my comments on Joe’s opinion piece here: https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-a-peace-plan-for-syria-35052.html#comment-253802