The fireman of last resort

It is striking that the first comments on Fred Hof’s Washington Post piece today advocating U.S. support for a “nonsectarian,” opposition government in Syria are negative.  The pendulum has swung hard against intervention, humanitarian or not.  Americans are not interested in getting involved.  They fear getting in deeper than they like and causing problems rather than solving them.

This is not surprising after a more than a decade of fruitless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the more recent intervention in Libya.  I would argue that Libya was a relatively successful intervention despite the murder of our ambassador and his colleagues in Benghazi by a relatively small group of extremists.  I would also argue that Iraq, while unquestionably not a just or justifiable war given the lack of nuclear weapons (or even a serious nuclear weapons program), is better off without Saddam Hussein.  The war in Afghanistan was justified, but botched and now unlikely to have a good outcome.  But I am not confident I can convince even my wife, who rolls her eyes knowingly whenever I say these things.  Americans are in no mood to try again in Syria to create a relative democracy where a sectarian autocracy has ruled for decades.

The values argument is clear

But the national mood should not be the only factor in determining whether we intervene in Syria.  National interests and values should also weigh in the balance.  So far as values are concerned, Fred is right:  we should be doing what we can to help the Syrian opposition to end a brutal and illegitimate dictatorship.  There really is no serious argument here, though of course Fred’s critics are correct to suggest that a democratic outcome is far from guaranteed.  Extreme Islamists are playing a strong role in the Syrian revolution and are likely to remain a strong political force once it is over, no matter what we do.

National interests are less clear

Some national interests also weigh in favor of intervention.  The fall of Bashar al Asad would certainly be a blow to his sponsors in Iran and his partners in Hizbollah.  If our failure to intervene means the war lasts longer, the conflict will become more sectarian and put at risk state structures throughout the Levant.  Apart from Syria itself, the spillover could threaten Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Turkey, all of which are receiving large numbers of refugees and sending  back into Syria fighters of various sectarian and ethnic groups.  The Americans worry a lot about Al Qaeda, whose purpose is to recreate an Islamic caliphate.  Continued fighting in and around Syria could make something like the caliphate re-emerge, with cataclysmic consequences.

Other national interests weigh against.  Our parlous economic and budgetary situation hardly argues for intervention in yet another conflict.  President Obama is concerned with keeping the Russians “on side” in support for the Northern Distribution Network, which is vital to American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and in the nuclear negotiations with Iran.  He also wants to maintain a credible threat of force against Iran’s nuclear program, which would be difficult to do if the US gets enmired in the Syrian war.

Everything costs

War is not cheap.  It generally runs $1 billion and up.  By some reckonings, we spent more than a trillion in Iraq, but that was a really expensive eight-year enterprise with lots of military and civilian boots on the ground.  No one advocates putting American troops on the ground in Syria.

Humanitarian relief and other aid is not free either, though it costs a lot less than war.  We are in the vicinity of $400 million already in Syria and the bills are compounding.  I won’t be surprised if the US chips in more than $1 billion by the end of this year.  The bill could go considerably higher.

What are we buying?  Necessities:  food, water, sanitation, shelter, including blankets, cooking stoves and other standard humanitarian relief supplies.  But they are going largely to government-controlled communities.  While USAID claims it is reaching all vulnerable populations, reports are multiplying of areas outside government control that are getting little or nothing.  It is just very difficult to get supplies to all those who need them.

Military options

Is there an alternative?  We are already providing intelligence to the opposition, according to the American press.  At this point, the main additional options are military.  You can call it a no-fly zone if you prefer, but as Jim Dobbins has said we can either give the Syrians the arms they need to take down Bashar al Asad’s aircraft or we can nail them ourselves.  The former is war by proxy.  The latter is war tout court. 

A billion or two in arms or air operations would not be trivial, though I’d be surprised if we got off quite that cheap.  In addition, the arms could end up in the wrong hands, which will likely happen no matter who supplies them.  No country wants to be the supplier of the shoulder-fired missile that brings down a commercial aircraft.  Nor do I think the folks receiving weapons are likely to show much gratitude, though supplying them to relative moderates could conceivably strengthen them in the post-war transition.

I’d be more interested in the “nail the aircraft” option, especially if it included the Scud missiles Bashar has been raining on population centers.  Something like this is going to be necessay if the liberated areas are ever to be safe from long-range attack.  The sooner it happens, the more likely it is the liberated areas can begin governing themselves, and receiving humanitarian assistance.

We’ve got a mess on our hands in Syria.  Allowing it to continue will make things worse.  Intervening could also make things worse, but it is likely to accelerate the denouement and tilt the outcome against Bashar.   Syria is a house on fire.  We can’t be the world’s policeman, but we do need to act as its fireman of last resort.