In this conflict, there is no lesser of two evils. On one hand we have the brutal dictatorial regime of Bashar al-Assad, and on the other there is the al-Qaida-backed rebel force. This isn’t an ultimatum where we have to choose which side to support. From a United States perspective, we must make decisions based off national interest.
While we would rather not have either party in power, there must be at least one solid reason to support one faction and not the other. We have to ask ourselves what we can gain from having this group in power. At this point, there really isn’t much either side can offer. Arming the rebels and lending support to them is a clear sign we do not wish to let Assad resume power. However, relations between the U.S. and al-Qaida are basically nonexistent. It’s a lose-lose situation when it comes to deciding who to support.
So now we have to look at it from a national security perspective. Whichever regime we leave to take power should obviously pose less of a threat to the U.S. than the other, but also preferably stand as a future ally. The big question people should ask themselves is whether Assad’s regime is a legitimate threat to the U.S., or would the al-Qaida-backed rebels prove to be a greater threat if they were to take power?
At the same time, doing nothing might make it seem as though we indirectly support Assad’s regime, thereby putting us into a catch-22.
This isn’t the time to step in and be the world police. If the U.S. wants to avoid war, but still maintain some role as a peacekeeper, we should follow alternate courses of action against Assad’s regime. Instead of kicking down the door, dropping bombs and arming al-Qaida-backed rebels, we should support refugee camps for the Syrian people and offer nonlethal aid to rebels, such as intelligence sharing.
One option the U.S. could pursue is to patch things up with Russia. Russia is the most globally recognized ally of Syria and could prove to be very useful in the conflict. Assad’s view of the West has a sense of trepidation attached to it, which has proven to hinder successful diplomacy. Russia, however, still possesses the ability to reason and negotiate with Assad. Russian support for de-escalating violence in Syria could be the most civil way of addressing the war.
The possibility of regional war comes as a consequence to western intervention in Syria. Assad said in an interview with Le Figaro on Monday that western military intervention in Syria would trigger regional war. That part of the world is already tormented enough with war and violence.
Syria is a sovereign state and is recognized as a legitimate government on the global stage, and the U.S. needs to respect that. With allies such as Iran and Russia, escalated violence in the region could move to the global stage.
We cannot afford another war. With the economy still not fully recovered and troops still out in the desert, it’s insane to think we are in a position to start another war. A Reuters poll conducted this week found that only 20 percent of Americans think the U.S. should take action against Syria.
With citizens having such little trust in the government nowadays, sending troops out to another dead-end war isn’t the way to go about improving approval ratings. Having such low support from the people has to say something about President Barack Obama’s chances at getting congressional approval to take action.
On top of that, more than $16 trillion worth of debt should be reason enough to stay put. The cost of the Iraq/Afghani war totaled to a little more than $1.4 trillion, as released by the Department of Defense comptroller, by 2013.
Back in the 1980s, the U.S. lent aid and arms to Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to help combat the Soviet occupation. Too focused on the Soviets and caught up in our containment tactics, we failed to see the ultimate consequences of our negligence. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.
If we do end up taking action and going into Syria, we very well may find ourselves in another version of the Iraq war.