Opinions

American inaction in Syria will haunt the region for decades

For those of us who value the “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine,” the case for using coercive measures in Syria is a slam dunk: President Bashar al-Assad has used barrel bombs, mass imprisonment, artillery, chemical weapons and other lethal methods to butcher his own civilians, resulting in the deaths of over 160,000 people, according to the Huffington Post.

So far, over 2.8 million refugees have spilled over into neighboring countries, more than 6.5 million civilians are estimated to be internally displaced and a serious mental health crisis threatens the emotional competency of an entire generation, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. In short, the Syrian conflict has caused a humanitarian catastrophe that will haunt the region for decades to come.

The question is, should the Obama administration have provided more military support for the moderate rebels during the initial stages of the conflict in order to prevent the mass atrocities perpetuated by the Assad regime? Furthermore, did the Obama administration’s inaction in Syria undermine stability in the Middle East and America’s interests in the region, especially in Iraq?

The answer to both questions is yes, and our miniscule levels of diplomatic and military efforts in both Syria and Iraq have done nothing to stop these powder kegs from erupting into flames with enormous costs in terms of human life and American strategic interests.

In Syria, President Obama’s fear of the costs of, even limited, military support for the opposition, as well as increasingly isolationist sentiments among the populace, led us to ignore the enormous consequences of inaction. As Hillary Clinton wrote in her recent memoirs, “the risks of both action and inaction were high.”

At the beginning of the Syrian conflict, it was unclear whether siding with the rebels would have stabilized or destabilized the region. It is understandable that Obama, being fearful of exacerbating the conflict, turned down the recommendations of Clinton and other senior officials to provide support for the rebels; however, hindsight has shown that American inaction in the Syrian conflict has allowed for the staggering human costs we witness today.

Additionally, the Obama administration’s inaction in Syria has severely harmed America’s strategic interests in the region, and possibly even its long term national security at home. The rise of ISIS, a militant, Sunni Jihadist group that is gaining territory across the Levant like a marauding, Mongol horde, potentially poses a greater threat to American interests and national security than Al Qaeda. It has accumulated serious amounts of natural resources, manpower and weaponry, which it could use to attack Western countries and undercut all of our extensive efforts in Iraq during the last decade.

ISIS is developing a quasi-state with de facto sovereignty across large swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq. Even when severely outnumbered, ISIS has sent the Iraqi army scrambling for the hills and toppled enormously populated Iraqi cities such as Tikrit and Mosul; according to Slate, ISIS has carved out a territory that is larger than Israel with resources such as oilfields, electrical grids, prisons and abandoned Iraqi and U.S. weapon depots under its control.

During its capture of Mosul, ISIS seized the central bank – along with its $425 million. Compare that to Al-Qaeda’s budget prior to 9/11, a measly $30 million. This rising jihadist group, which is so violent that even Al-Qaeda leader Zawahiri disavowed any association with due to its brutality against fellow Jihadist fighters, poses a grave threat to America’s national security and interests in the Middle East.

The current humanitarian crisis in Syria and the rise of the militant Islamist group ISIS are inextricably linked to American inaction during the outset of the Syrian conflict. Although any form of policy prescription with respect to which countries we should cooperate with militarily remains difficult due to the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” politics of the Middle East, hard power may be warranted in order to stave off further humanitarian costs and damage to America’s interests and national security.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Daily 49er newsletter

Instagram