peacefare.net

Anything but

President Obama yesterday told the world–and Bashar al Asad–all too clearly what he plans to do about Syria:  nothing, so long as Asad makes no move to use his chemical weapons.  “At this point the likelihood of a soft landing seems pretty distant,” he said.

The contrast with the Barack Obama of May 2011 is stark:

The President still wants all those nice things:  democratic transition, an end to shooting demonstrators, peaceful demonstrations, access for human rights monitors.  But he signaled yesterday what most of us have already concluded from a year of inaction:  he isn’t going to use American military power to get it done.

Why not?  Russian opposition is one reason.  He isn’t prepared to buck Moscow when he needs Russian support both for the northern supply network into Afghanistan (which may also be necessary for American withdrawal) and for the nuclear talks with Iran. President Putin is hard over about Syria.  The smart money says that is more about domestic policy than international affairs.

Arab hesitation is another.  The Arab League is not asking for military intervention, as it did in Libya.  Saudi Arabia and Qatar are preferring to arm the Syrian opposition.

They likely know all too well that Europe, which in the end carried much of the military burden in Libya, is unwilling to repeat the experiment.  Euro problems and the consequent financial burdens are weighing too heavily as the European Union heads into its double-dip recession.

The Administration is vaunting its cooperation with Turkey against Asad.  Assistant Secretary of State Beth Jones is headed for Ankara to intensify the effort, though precisely what that means is unclear to me.  The Turks, while providing safe haven for both refugees and the Free Syrian Army, have hesitated to intervene militarily.  Some say the Americans have held them back, but I suspect they hesitate also because Asad can respond by encouraging Kurdish guerillas to attack inside Turkey.

Some in the Administration also think we are already doing a good job of bleeding Iran, which is more and more engaged on the ground in Syria.  We can keep our powder dry for possible military action against Iran’s nuclear program but at the same time cost them a bundle in money and men fighting an insurgency in Syria.  That may well be cost effective.

This approach leaves poor Syria out in the cold.  The death toll is approaching 200 per day.*  The regime has retaken Damascus but has not entirely succeeded in Aleppo.  Large swaths of the country are out of Asad’s control but still far from peaceful.  Someone at the UN has a keen sense of irony:  the Secretary General’s report on “responsibility to protect” issued yesterday is entitled “timely and decisive response.”  The response in Syria so far is anything but.

I have not favored in the past military action.  “Safe areas” and “humanitarian corridors” would become target-rich environments.  Large military operations would be needed to enforce them.  They are bad ideas.

But Asad’s increasing use of aircraft (helicopters as well as fixed wing) merits some kind of  international response.  If it is too dangerous to give the opposition the shoulder-fired missiles (MANPADs) it wants, the President needs to consider a no-fly zone over all of Syria.  Unless Asad responds by immediately grounding his air force, that would also require a major military operation to suppress the air defense system.

*PS, August 22:  out of date already.  The opposition reports 250 killed yesterday.