Daniel Larison

Did Last Night’s Debate Change Anything?

Arming the Syrian Opposition Is Still a Terrible Idea

By Daniel Larison • October 12, 2012, 9:51 AM

Walter Russell Mead pens a thoroughly unpersuasive argument for arming the Syrian opposition:

Aiding the less ugly, less bad guys in the Syrian resistance, and even finding a few actual good guys to support, isn’t about installing a pro-American government in post civil war Syria. It’s about minimizing the prospects for a worst-case scenario—by shortening the era of conflict and so, hopefully, reducing the radicalization of the population and limiting the prospects that Syrian society as a whole will descend into all-out chaotic massacres and civil conflict. And it’s about making sure that other people in Syria, unsavory on other grounds as they may be, who don’t like al-Qaeda type groups and don’t want them to establish a permanent presence in the country, have enough guns and ammunition to get their way.

Everything in this argument depends on the assumption that funneling more and heavier weapons to the opposition will make the conflict shorter than it would otherwise be. If that isn’t correct, all of the evils Mead identifies become even more likely. Instead of staving off a worst-case scenario, arming the opposition would help to ensure that this scenario occurs. If the main concern is to prevent that scenario from unfolding, it doesn’t follow that arming the opposition is the answer.

Shortening the conflict is almost certainly not what will happen. Arming the opposition in Syria will prolong the conflict by providing at least some anti-regime forces with the means to keep fighting much longer than they could without this support. The goal of such a policy is to bring about regime collapse, which will make for even more “all-out chaotic massacres and civil conflict.” Helping to collapse the existing government will create a vacuum that terrorist groups can and will exploit. This is not something we have to speculate about. We’ve seen it happen in Iraq, and we have started to see it to some extent in Libya, and of course it is clearly happening in northern Mali where the authority of the Malian government has completely collapsed. Mead’s recommended policy would very likely produce all of the undesirable and dangerous consequences that he claims it would prevent.

Posted in foreign policy, politics. Tagged AQIM, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Walter Russell Mead.

15 Responses to Arming the Syrian Opposition Is Still a Terrible Idea

Ethan C. says:

October 12, 2012 at 12:11 pm

That’s a pretty good critique of Mead’s idea. But…what should we do instead? Is there a way to prevent regime collapse and a long messy civil war at this point?

From my armchair, it seems that “the opposition” is definitely going to continue getting armed by somebody, so far the Saudis. And that means the civil war is going to drag on.

Does that mean that the U.S. should start arming particular groups, to try to pick winners? Probably not, given how terrible we always are at that sort of thing.

But is there some other way for us to be pro-active in the situation, rather than simply waiting and reacting to whatever ends up happening?
Brad says:

October 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Ethan,
Why must we assume that we must be “pro-active” in the situation at all? Must we be pro-active in Bahrain? (In Bahrain we are actually supporting a brutal crackdown on protesters!). Must we “do something” in Mali, or in Sudan? Must we jump in on a humanitarian basis in civil conflicts around the world? The list could go on… This part of the problem with popular thinking on foreign policy: these things have nothing to do with OUR DEFENSE or best interest… just a recipe for further engagement in foreign quagmires that see more of our troops dead for ambiguous and undefined causes.
This
Brad says:

October 12, 2012 at 1:18 pm

All that was meant to say to the question “what should we do”?

Answer: NOTHING
Deus X says:

October 12, 2012 at 1:45 pm

“That’s a pretty good critique of Mead’s idea. But…what should we do instead? Is there a way to prevent regime collapse and a long messy civil war at this point? ”

Regime collapse and messy civil war are already underway, are they not?

Thanks to the last two or three disastrous presidencies we are now widely hated and distrusted in the area, so our job is to delegate and stand clear. Give Turkey the leading role, on the ironclad understanding that NATO will not be called in under any circumstances.
Luke C. says:

October 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm

Brad,
I don’t think the argument for doing something in Syria is humanitarian based; at least not the way I understand it. Wilsonian foreign policy irks me just as much as it (apparently) does you but in this case, you seem to suffer from the same problem Mr. Larison does: what would you have us do as an alternative? It seems pretty clear to me that we simply cannot let another state in THE key region in the world be used as a launching pad for al Qaeda. Despite what Mr. Obama says, al Qaeda is not decimated. In fact they seem to be doing pretty well in Libya and Mali. As a result, we have a vested interest in how Syria turns out, like it or not. You’ve equated the debate about arming the opposition (the ones we approve of) with losing American life in Syria. NO ONE has gone that far yet.
Luke C. says:

October 12, 2012 at 5:05 pm

Deus X,

I completely agree: use our influence (we still have quite a bit) to our advantage with our allies in the region. Offshore balancing; looks like you’ve been reading Mr. Walt.
Clint says:

October 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm

Turkey,Saudi Arabia and Qatar can handle arming the Syrian opposition.

This obsession to play global cop interventionists is off the wall,out of control now.

And this guy Mead,is a Democrat,who voted for Obama and supported The Iraq War.
Brad says:

October 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm

Luke,
You’re right that I shouldn’t equate arming the opposition with losing American life (though arming the opposition does mean that more Syrian Christians and non-Sunnis will die at the hands of our FSA Muslim Brotherhood allies).

I mention humanitarian-minded intervention because that’s how current U.S. action of limited military aid (communications, training/guidance, money, etc…) to the opposition is currently sold by the media and the administration.

“It seems pretty clear to me that we simply cannot let another state in THE key region in the world be used as a launching pad for al Qaeda… In fact they seem to be doing pretty well in Libya and Mali.”

Al Qaeda is doing so well in Libya and Mali precisely because we intervened to overthrow Qaddafi. Remember too that Al Qaeda was not present in Iraq while Saddam was in power, but cropped up everywhere due to our invasion. In Libya, Iraq, and now in Syria, we find ourselves the useful allies of Al Qaeda. Since the 1970′s enemy #1 for jihadi groups in general (esp. the Muslim Brotherhood, which was the ideological soil from which Al Qaeda took root) has always been the secular and socialist dictatorial regimes that dominated the post-WWII Middle East. The American project that Bush and his neo-con strategists inagurated helped Al Qaeda acheive one its most important long term objectives.

You acknowledge that Al Qaeda is running around in these post-regime nations, but don’t admit that our actions directly contributed to this, and then you say that Mr. Larison suffers from naivete for [I presume] his critique of such foreign adventurism without proposing “alternative action.”

The best thing we could do to stop Al Qaeda is to stop siding with them… we have to stop with this itch to always “do something.”
Brad says:

October 12, 2012 at 9:25 pm

I must add further that the notion that we can identify the opposition “good guys” in Syria and only supply them with weapons is an absurdity and shouldn’t be part of the debate at all. Anyone who has been there and has any first hand understanding the region and culture knows that this is a stupid idea which is the testimony of even very recent history (it’s a sad irony that one of the missions of our destroyed Benghazi consulate had been to locate and recover “lost [NATO] weapons” of the civil war).
I’ve had personal contact (she contacted me) with a CIA employee attached to the U.S. Embassy in Damascus (it was back when we had one there) – I was flabbergasted to find she didn’t even speak Arabic!!! I throw that in as something symbolic of general American ignorance of the region – yet we always must “act” in some way.

Ironically, our interests are best served here if we back out of all current support for the oppostion – whether monetary, logistical, military supplies, or even verbal. We would stop our severe sanctions which are felt mostly by the common people (the people we pretend to help). We could also press others like the Saudis, Qatarese, and Turks to back off too.
The rebels would lose their life-line and the Assad regime would endure.
What would be the result of an intact Ba’athist regime with Assad on top? End of Al-Qaeda in Syria; end of Muslim Brotherhood in Syria; protection of Christians and other minorities; peaceful Golan Heights border with Israel; and ultimately regional STABILITY.
Before any cries “oh he supports the evil dictator” – remember that the U.S. [and our taxes in the form of military aid] currently fully aids the brutal regime in Bahrain which is as I type these words shooting, torturing, and oppressing its own “Arab Spring” movement.
kabiddle says:

October 12, 2012 at 9:57 pm

American foreign policy by those who choose the shoot first scenerio are, as far as I’m concerned, more interested in guns than butter and by that I mean that guns will be more profitable than any butter ever would be. It is a cliche; but as is said, cliches are cliches because they usually fit the bill.
Hunsdon says:

October 12, 2012 at 11:12 pm

Is there any material evidence that suggests that “anti-government elements” in Syria, should they come to power, would favor US interests more than the Alawite Assad government?

Or is revolution simply in fashion these days?
Barry says:

October 13, 2012 at 7:24 am

A while back I wondered who Walter Russell Mead was. I Wiki’d him and read some articles.

He’s a miscellaneous neocon nobody without an original or worthwhile thought. He falls into the category of ‘listen and then do the opposite’.
Gerard says:

October 13, 2012 at 7:38 am

The neo-cons run foreign policy– whether they are Democrats or Republicans. They prefer dysfunctional Arab/Moslem states even if it means Islamist factions come to power because dysfunctional states can’t project a threat outside their borders (i.e., threaten Israel). They (neo-cons) really don’t have much concern for the Christian population within these countries or the long-term consequences to the Western world.

Romney will be a disaster for this country and the world. He has already promised to attack Iran and help the Syrian rebels. I’m sure there is some Bible-thumper on a shortwave-broadcast radio station in the backwoods of the South talking about the Mormon Anti-Christ coming to power. He might be right.
VikingLS says:

October 13, 2012 at 9:21 am

I am going to second Brad here. An Assad victory is probably a better outcome for us than an Assad defeat.

I’m not that impressed with all the “look at how horrible Assad is!” reports. Assad is trying to put down a civil war. Abraham Lincoln doesn’t look much better if you reported his actions in the same tone of breathless horror. (Lincon used scorched earth policies ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, Lincoln forced mass starvation ON HIS OWN PEOPLE etc.)

Whatever succeeds Assad in Syria will, after the mass “reprisals” against Christians and other religious minorities, be Sunni dominated and likely very hostile to Israel. Now personally I could care less about Israel but the US seems to shape most of its middle east policy around the needs of Tel Aviv, and this hardly is an outcome that benefits Israel.
Gerard says:

October 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm

If you want to see how wonderful the Syrian rebels (FSA) are there are places on the web where you can see them burning alive and decapitating people all with the gleeful shouts of “Allahu Ahkbar”.