Written by Klée Aiken

For anyone who has done so much as peak out from under a rock in the last few weeks it has become abundantly clear that after 29 months of sputtering policies and a continued lack of good options, the time has come to address Syria. The beating drums of war have sounded, talking heads have been screaming about “imminent” U.S. strikes for weeks, and politicians have been spewing political nonsense at unprecedented rates.

As most have been assaulted with this issue for the last several days I will skip a backgrounder but HERE is a quick and dirty run down by WaPo for those in need. The situation in Syria is a humanitarian disaster, the UN estimates over 100,000 have died, over two million refugees have fled the country, and there is no sign that these trends will dissipate in the near future. How should the United States move forward on this issue?

When approaching the conflict in Syria we must be honest with ourselves, accept that the time has long passed for ideal solutions and face the grim fact that there are no good options. For that reason, limited and proportional strikes appear to be the best of the worst.

Say what you will about self-interested politicians looking simply to preserve personal or national credibility, the situation boils down to the fact that the use of chemical weapons flys in the face of international law and norms. President Obama was correct in stating the “world set a red line”, and while the Chemical Weapons Convention does not stipulate punitive measures when broken, the unwillingness of the international community to enforce such laws will rapidly degrade their worth.

Strictly limited strikes on chemical weapons caches and delivery vehicles with the an explicit and publicized intention to enforce international law and not to change the situation on the ground, can have the intended impact of stopping the Assad regime from utilizing these arms, enforcing international law, and avoiding being dragged fully into this conflict.

If handled properly, this action might even elicit support from the Russians and in turn the UN Security Council, a possibility alluded to by Putin himself. While Russian support for the Syrian regime is well publicized and it remains suspect of mission creep as seen in Libya, if engaged openly as equal partners on limited strikes focused solely on chemical weapons caches it is not inconceivable that they will provide tacit approval. Wishful thinking? Probably.

While many will argue that even limited strikes represent a “taking of sides” and an act of war, which they very well do, given Syria’s limited retaliatory capabilities and a strict adherence to limited and targeted strikes it is possible for the U.S. to enforce the “rules of the game” while remaining at arms length from the conflict. A volley of tomahawk missiles from submarines will limit engagement and reduce potential for U.S. casualties and the Assad regime will not want to provoke a more determined U.S. involvement.

While intelligence gathering remains an issue, with the U.S., Great Britain, France, and Germany among others all pointing to the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime turning a blind eye is not a favorable option. The ability of the U.S. to strike all of the regime’s chemical weapons may also be hampered by incomplete intelligence, however the stated goal of any such strike would be to neutralize the weapons as a viable tool rather than to necessarily destroy all capabilities. A decisive strike against most if not all targets will send the necessary message, which is that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated and will provoke a response.

But what does this do to solve the humanitarian crisis, how does this lead to political stability, and how does this do more than preserve the “credibility” of power drunk nations? All fair questions, so lets look at the alternatives.

Option 1: Default

A civil war between a tyrannical leader who in all likelihood has used chemical weapons and a fractured and unknown opposition, replete with radical elements and unsavory external actors, seems like the perfect situation to sit out. Take a leaf from the German playbook, muddle about and shirk responsibility, or better yet do as the British, pledge humanitarian aid and go gentle into that good night.

Frankly this has been the default position since the beginning of the conflict. The “West” is war wary and the known unknowns, unknowns unknowns, and the like have only grown since the onset of protests in March 2011, better not to get trapped in another Middle East quagmire. Unfortunately casualties will continue to mount, instability may spread to neighbors, you can toss credibility, and you can forget about the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Option 2: Diplomacy

“The U.S. should use its clout to broker a cease-fire, with diplomatic persuasion for Turkey and Saudi Arabia to stop arming the rebels and Russia and Iran to stop arming Assad.” This is the perfect solution, absolutely ideal, and frankly idiotic. For those who forget a UN/Arab League peaceful solution failed when Bashir al-Assad was on more shaky ground and talk of U.S. clout, especially with Iran, is silly. You will be hard pressed to bring a resurgent Assad to talks and who would sit across the table?

Option 3: Finish the Job

Alright. Enough. It has been 29 months, lets finish this. The United States has numerous platforms in the region, our ‘oldest’ ally has our back, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the UAE appear to be throwing down. While incredibly messy, an international intervention, even if limited to only the U.S., could and would undoubtedly deliver on the core mission objective to remove the Assad regime.

Unfortunately, while the issue of the Assad regime wiping out its own citizens may be solved in this scenario, it hardly marks the end of the crisis. Even when ignoring the countless civilian casualties suffered during any military intervention, the results of such action will at best result in protracted insurgencies and more likely in the continuation of the civil war sans a centralized military actor. The international community is not interested in being involved in another regime change exercise in the Middle East, especially when the likely result is continued, if not intensified, instability and violence.

Option 4: Taking Sides

Taking a step back from an all out invasion, the U.S. can still take a stand. Arm the rebels, enforce a no-fly zone, change the situation on the ground much like in Libya. Even discounting the unlikely prospects for a Security Council resolution and any wider response from Russia or Iran, the nature of the conflict has gone far beyond the moderate democratic demands by protesters in March 2011. Internal and external radical elements have flooded the conflict, ethnic and religious tensions bubble below the surface, and the opposition is fractured and pursing alternative long term agendas. Arming these groups could be disastrous, the tide of the civil war may shift, however the end result would simply be more violent conflict and lets not forget the “success” of arming the Afghan resistance during the Cold War.

So what now?

Changing the situation on the ground will be costly in both lives and money, and while it may remove a dictator it will not lead to peace, stability, or even an end to violence. Doing nothing will do nothing. Well, nothing except embolden the Assad regime, degrade the credibility of leaders, nations, and most importantly international law. A limited and proportional response may remind the world that while international law has no teeth there are consequences to breaking it and may convince the Assad regime to lay off the chemical weapons, however it will not end the humanitarian catastrophe or bring about political stability.

There are no good options, you can take your pick, in this writer’s frustrated opinion limited strikes are the best we got, but they sure wont “solve” anything. All we can say is that while the British may not be coming, the tomahawks most certainly are, what comes after will be judged by history.

Related Posts:

– With Syria, is the International Community Changing Games or Playing Games? (May 9, 2013)

– Putin and Erdogan put Syria in the backseat, pipeline politics first (December 10, 2012)

– From Annan to Brahimi to…Peace? (September 10, 2012)

– International Perspectives Towards Syria (July 17, 2012)