Next steps in Syria

Many observers regard appointment of an interim government by the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as a key next step in trying to supplant Bashar al Assad, who shows no signs of stepping aside.  I would not ordinarily count appointment of a committee to consider the matter and report back in ten days as progress, but all things in diplomacy are relative.  Maybe it is.  The National Coalition reports after its most recent General Assembly meeting:

The General Assembly of [the] coalition agreed to form a committee to communicate with political and revolutionary forces inside Syria, and with international organizations and governments to assure support for the interim government. The chair of this committee is Mr. Ahmed Maaz Al-Khateeb, president of the National Coalition Syrian, and includes Mr. George Sabra, Mr. Mustafa Sabbagh,  Professor Bourhan Galion, Dr. Ahmed Syed Yusuf and Mr. Ahmed Al-Jerba. The Committee was asked to complete its mission in 10 days and send a report to the General Assembly. A decision to form the interim government will be made then.

Obviously appointment of the interim government is not proving easy.  It can’t be, since it will determine an initial distribution of power that may be hard to overturn.  The luminaries named to the committee are key leaders of various opposition efforts, past and present.  They are also notably all male.

But the idea of consulting before acting is not a bad one.  One of the supposed advantages of the National Coalition over the previous umbrella opposition organization, the Syrian National Council, is its connections to the revolutionary forces inside Syria.  If an interim government fails to acquire legitimacy there, including with the Free Syrian Army factions, it won’t be worth much.

Where progress is even less evident is in Washington.  There are lots of ideas being put forward for more vigorous action on Syria.  Here’s my informal tally sheet:

1. Use the Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to enforce a no-fly zone inside Syria along the border.
2. Send U.S. military and intelligence equipment and/or training to the opposition.
3. Outreach to Alawites and other minorities, to compensate for Sunni domination of the Coalition.
4. Intensified engagement with the Russians to convince them to abandon Assad.
5. Increase assistance to local liberated communities, especially those willing to help find and neutralize chemical weapons.
6. Deploy air and other military assets prepared to strike or seize chemical weapons depots.

But if President Obama is seriously considering any of these, he did not give a hint of it in his Inauguration speech.  Nor did I detect any sign of it meeting last week with Syria-focused people in the U.S. government.

The Russians though have begun to evacuate some of their citizens.  This is a preliminary signal.  A more definitive one would be closing of the Embassy in Damascus.  Tehran is also sounding alarmed, and Bashar’s mother is thought to have left Damascus.

The regime still shows no sign of crumbling, only cracking.  The opposition reports today the defection of 450 soldiers, but high-level defections (especially of key Alawite officers) are few and far between.  A stalemate seems to be emerging.  A “mutually hurting stalemate” is precisely the precondition for a negotiated outcome.   A good negotiated outcome would be one in which Bashar al Asad steps aside and the regime gives up power, not one in which it is given another lease on murdering Syrians.  UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi is presumably hard at work trying to get to yes on that.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testifies today in both the Senate and the House on the Benghazi attack in September that killed the American ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues.  She has reason to be relieved that Syria is not the focus, since the Administration has so far failed in its indirect efforts to collapse the Asad regime.  Maybe tomorrow’s Senate confirmation hearing for Senator John Kerry will provide an opportunity for questioning about that.  Or is the American political class going to skip altogether opportunities to examine whether we could, and should, be doing more to stop a slaughter that has now taken more than 65,000 lives?

PS:  The Benghazi incident evoked this rather trenchant response from the Secretary this morning:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy