U.S. Should Stay Out Of Syrian Conflict

(The above photo of the Syrian conflict is from The Guardian.)

The conflict in Syria, between government and anti-government forces, is one of the bloodiest wars currently being fought -- and both sides have been accused (and are probably guilty) of atrocities. For a while now there has been pressure being put on the United States government to arm the rebels, and some (both on the right and left) even want U.S. troops to intervene in the war against the Syrian government.

Recently the stakes have been raised -- as there have been reports that the Syrian government is guilty of using chemical weapons against the rebels (reports that the White House seems to believe). This is putting added pressure on the president to take some kind of action to support the rebels.

We need to be very careful about this though. No one has yet produced any definitive proof that chemical weapons have been used. And at least one member of the U.N. Commission investigating the matter (Carla Del Ponte) has said on the record that the rebels may have used sarin gas against government troops. The head of that commission has refused to verify that, saying that there is (at least so far) no evidence that either side has used poison gas or any other chemical weapons.

That means that those advocating starting another war (which like other recent conflicts may prove to be endless, since the rebels are composed of several factions that could go to war with each other if they could defeat the government) are currently just relying on rumors. And as we saw in Iraq, those rumors could be very wrong (remember all the "weapons of mass destruction" that Iraq was supposed to have?). This Syrian conflict is very complicated, and I'm not at all sure that anyone knows what is really going on.

The U.S. government would be making a serious mistake to get involved in another conflict at this time -- especially since we still can't seem to find a way out of the Afghan conflict. The last thing we need is another endless war, where the supposed "freedom fighters we are supposed to support may turn out to be trying to establish another muslim fundamentalist government that we couldn't get along with. This is a Syrian problem, and it can only be solved by the Syrian people. A U.S.-imposed solution by military power is almost guaranteed to be a failure.

Here is what the shadow cabinet created by the United States Green Party has to say on this matter:

The Obama administration has seemingly painted itself into yet another military corner by announcing that use of chemical weapons by Syria would constitute a red line that would mandate military action on the part of the United States. Now we are hearing reports that the red line may have been crossed, and some prominent officials are calling for the U.S. to step up its aid to the rebels and/or impose a no-fly zone. Proponents of military action such as Secretary of State John Kerry and hawkish Senator John McCain seem to think that the U.S. can sort out the “good guys” in the Syrian civil war, and use U.S. military assets to help the rebels take down the Assad government.

U.S. military involvement in Syria could only make things worse. Syria does not need a "no fly" zone. It needs a "no weaponizing" zone. The White House and its allies need to stop arming one side of a civil war, and to persuade Russia to stop arming the other. Further escalating the violence will result in nothing that could outweigh the damage of that violence.

The Netanyahu government in Israel has just raised the ante in this precarious situation by conducting air-to-ground missile attacks against Syria, undoubtedly with the tacit approval of the United States. Allowing Israel to attack Syria without consequences is not only the sanctioning of a crime; it also allows momentum to develop for greater violence and pushes peaceful resolution further out of reach. Diplomacy must be actively pursued before it is too late.

Further military interference in Syria would be a disastrous decision in important ways. For one thing, it is not at all clear if chemical weapons have been used, and if so, by which side. U.S. media has a tendency to turn conjecture into accepted fact merely by repeating it. Furthermore, the U.S. military has itself used  and continues to use chemical and nuclear weapons — Agent Orange and napalm in Vietnam and white phosphorus and depleted uranium weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The ongoing hypocrisy of U.S. policy and practice in this regard undermines our nation’s international moral and legal position.

Secondly, there are few if any “good guys” among the combatants in Syria. Because the White House has decided that regime change in Syria is our business, Americans are now squarely allied with extremist anti-democratic insurgents—the same people the administration has deemed our enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As it has time after the time, the theory that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” will come back to bite the U.S. once Assad is out of office.  

Those who hold Libya up as an example of the kind of military action that should be taken in Syria don’t understand some very basic concepts. Syria’s air defense batteries are located in urban centers, not like Libya’s, which could be attacked without causing a high number of civilian casualties. If the U.S. targets urban centers in Syria, global opinion will quickly turn against us. Furthermore, the Assad government’s close relationship with major powers Russia and Iran could mean that a U.S. attack would lead to widespread war. An escalated U.S. war in Syria would not be waged simply on American terms. Those who advocate for military action don’t seem to understand the global response to our actions.

But the most basic reason that the U.S. should not interfere militarily in Syria is because we should support self-determination. It should be left to the Syrian people to decide who will run their government. Overthrowing foreign governments is not legal, moral, or practical.  It is not a safe practice to encourage. In fact, in nearly a century of warmaking, there is still no example of the United States or NATO having “liberated” a country to beneficial effect. Libya's violence is spilling into neighboring nations. Iraq is arguably in worse shape post-intervention than Syria is pre-intervention.

In the immediate term, the Green Shadow Cabinet calls on the United States government and the international community to provide humanitarian aid—food and shelter for those displaced, and assistance to countries that are providing safe haven for Syrian refugees. And the administration should invest in multilateral diplomatic efforts involving both Russia and Iran, as well as others, to push for a cease fire and an end to weapons shipments.

In the long term, we must win an international ban on weapons and war profiteering, which is a major factor in feeding the cycle of violence.