fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

The Options for the U.S. in Syria Are Still Very Limited

The U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, reportedly traveled to Hama to investigate the conditions there and to make some show of U.S. support for anti-regime protesters. This would be the same ambassador that Republican interventionists insisted be recalled after the crackdown began, and it is the same ambassador whose confirmation was blocked last year […]

The U.S. Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, reportedly traveled to Hama to investigate the conditions there and to make some show of U.S. support for anti-regime protesters. This would be the same ambassador that Republican interventionists insisted be recalled after the crackdown began, and it is the same ambassador whose confirmation was blocked last year by Republican opposition. As it was, like several other ambassadors blocked in the Senate, Ford went to Damascus thanks to a December recess appointment.

If critics of the administration’s decision to send an ambassador to Syria had had their way, Ford would not be there now. According to these critics, sending an ambassador to Syria “rewarded” Assad, and they tend to regard all attempts at engagement as endorsements of regime behavior, which is why recalling Ford was the first and sometimes only thing they could think to recommend this spring. I am unsure whether the ambassador’s visit was a good idea, but it’s worth remembering that the people who keep insisting that the U.S. demonstrate support for Syrian protesters have been at the forefront of trying to stop the U.S. from having an ambassador in the country.

Jonathan Tobin comments on Ford’s visit:

The Syrian government reacted angrily, accusing the envoys of meeting with “saboteurs” and inciting protests. This will cause some to worry their association with Americans will taint Syrian dissidents, and the protests will now be seen as inspired by the West. But such arguments are absurd and are merely excuses for doing nothing while people are being slaughtered by a tyrant.

There are those, including not a few members of the Obama administration, who tend to see America’s role in the world as essentially malevolent. They believe any self-respecting freedom movement must disassociate itself from the West and the United States in particular if it wishes to succeed.

It is possible that association with the U.S. will taint Syrian dissidents in the eyes of many other Syrians. This is not absurd, but an acknowledgment that anti-American sentiment is very significant in Syria. The desirability and utility of U.S. support depend heavily on public opinion in a given country. According to Gallup’s survey back in 2009, 64% of Syrians expressed an unfavorable view of the United States, and 71% disapproved of American leadership. The favorability and approval numbers from 2010 were roughly the same. To the extent that such shows of U.S. support can be used to make dissidents appear to be agents of outside forces, this is potentially quite damaging to the dissidents’ credibility. This has nothing to do with Americans’ attributing malevolence to the U.S. and everything to do with the perception of the U.S. in Syria. It may be that the small minority of Syrians that views the U.S. favorably and approves of U.S. leadership overlaps to a large degree with the Syrians protesting against the regime, so at least the protesters might welcome U.S. backing, but for the most part that is just a guess and isn’t based on anything.

There is no point in trying to lend help to a protest movement if that would be used effectively to discredit it in the eyes of its countrymen. It isn’t good enough to say that the regime will make up stories to discredit the opposition no matter what the U.S. does. If the U.S. is going to insert itself into a political crisis in another country, there has to be a reasonable expectation that it would do some good. It is appropriate to be skeptical of calls to show support for Syrian protesters when many of the same people made the same calls two years ago in response to Iranian protests. The best evidence is that Western expressions of sympathy were not helpful and were not welcomed by most of the protesters. Of course, we are mostly arguing over whether or not the U.S. should engage in mostly symbolic gestures on behalf of protesters. The terms of the debate here in the U.S. reveal just how little our government can do in response to these protests and the brutal crackdown against them.

Update: Not that it will matter to the people demanding that the administration “do something,” but Rasmussen found back in May that 65% of Americans say that the U.S. should leave the situation alone. There is virtually no public support for more direct U.S. involvement in Syria’s upheaval (9%), and this is true regardless of party, ideology, income, and education.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here