fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

An Argument for Syrian Intervention Demonstrates Why the U.S. Should Stay Out

Robert Satloff describes several dangers that a prolonged Syrian conflict poses to the surrounding region and calls for U.S. and other outside intervention: A slow, grinding conflict in which the regime continues its merciless but ultimately futile whack-a-mole strategy is the most likely backdrop for these nightmare scenarios. In contrast, swift and decisive action to […]

Robert Satloff describes several dangers that a prolonged Syrian conflict poses to the surrounding region and calls for U.S. and other outside intervention:

A slow, grinding conflict in which the regime continues its merciless but ultimately futile whack-a-mole strategy is the most likely backdrop for these nightmare scenarios. In contrast, swift and decisive action to hasten Assad’s departure is the best way to immunize against this set of terrifying outcomes.

The dangers Satloff lists include the Syrian regime’s loss of control of its biological and chemical weapons stockpile, renewed Syrian support for the PKK to punish Turkey for helping the opposition, Syrian expulsion of Palestinian refugees into neighboring countries, Syrian-backed attacks on Sunnis in Lebanon, and an influx of jihadists into Syria. Of these, the first and last seem most plausible, but it appears that none of the usual measures proposed for intervention in Syria would do anything to prevent them.

Syria would not start actively supporting the PKK unless it wanted to guarantee a Turkish military response, so that doesn’t seem very likely. If the Syrian regime set out to destabilize its neighbors, that would increase their neighbors’ support for foreign intervention and create justifications for Western governments to use force in the name of protecting international peace and security. Syria’s neighbors have generally been against foreign military intervention because they understandably fear the destabilizing effects it would have on them, so it’s not clear why the Syrian regime would want to drive them into the pro-intervention camp.

It is questionable whether “swift and decisive action” would prevent the most plausible dangers he lists. That would depend on the nature of the action. What is more certain is that Satloff’s proposed measures do not represent “swift and decisive action”:

Such resolve could include a mix of cyberwarfare, to interfere with Syrian government communications efforts; unmanned drones, to target key installations and weapons depots; air power, to establish and defend safe zones; and a manned element based in neighboring states, to execute a train and equip mission to support rebel forces.

Whatever else one wants to say about these measures, they will be neither swift nor decisive. To the extent that they are successful, they will take a long time to “work,” and they seem unlikely to prevent any of the “nightmare” scenarios in question. The “nightmare” scenarios Satloff describes that seem unlikely now become more likely if the U.S. and some of Syria’s neighbors follow these recommendations. Intervention of the kind Satloff prescribes here will change the way the regime behaves toward its neighbors, and not for the better. For the moment Assad has an incentive not to provoke his neighbors with hostile acts against them, but once they begin arming the opposition Assad has less to lose. Jihadists will likely exploit the conflict either way. Actively trying to weaken the regime would make it more likely that regime forces would lose control over their stockpile of unconventional weapons. If a slow, grinding conflict is the “most likely backdrop” for these scenarios, why should the U.S. help to guarantee that the conflict will be a slow, grinding one?

Advertisement

Comments

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