The Inherent Risk of Invasion

As the boom of rocket fire and the cacophony of war continue to disturb Syria, one cannot help but wonder if our intervention is necessary to the security of the Syrian people.  There is an outpouring of public opinion that envisions some sort of American retaliation for the chemical weapons, allegedly deployed by the government of Mr. Assad.  By the time this is published we may well find ourselves involved in yet another war in the Middle East.  Therefore I propose to focus on the morality of any retaliatory strike we may take, the risks to American interests, and the ponderous question we have asked since Vietnam—when is it acceptable for America to adopt interventionist policies?

Foremost lies the immediate question of the morality of invading Syria.  While not currently stable, Syria is on the road to stability.  Mr. Assad, the Syrian President, has regained control of most of the country. U.S. involvement in Syria would prolong the war and while our victory over Mr. Assad is assured, history tells us that it would be a pyrrhic victory; we would be required to dedicate countless taxpayer dollars into rebuilding a country and descend into the political quagmire that will inevitably arise from the annihilation of the legitimate Syrian Government.

Have we not learned our lesson since Charlie Wilson’s War?  The rebels we are arming are dominated by radical and militant Islamic leaders, for whom we are the natural enemy and next target.  Mr. Assad’s government is closely allied with Iran but they are not radically Islamic, in fact Assad’s government has done much to protect minority groups, like Syriac Christians and Samaritans.  His government has increased literacy, boosted economic growth, and protected the basic rights of his people.  Mr. Assad is not a saint-- he is the scion of a political dynasty that has dominated Syria since the French withdrew.  His government does not meet our standards for a Western democracy.  His government is no friend to Israel.  All this aside, the Syrian Government has done much to improve the lives of their citizens.  The rebels only agree that they want Assad out.  They have proposed no new government to replace the existing, they have made no declarations about a democratic government, a secularized western government, or that this new government would protect the human rights of the Syrian people. In short, there is no guarantee that the Syrian people would benefit from a rebel victory and even less evidence that the new regime would be pro-American.

Luckily our reason for invasion has nothing to do with the morality of either cause but instead focuses on whether or not the Syrian Republican Guard used chemical weapons on a civilian population.  Conveniently the area attacked by Mr. Assad’s forces was bombed by the rebels shortly after the strike—damaging any evidence that could have been gleaned from the ruins.  In an address given by President Obama, reported by CNN on the 28^th of August, 2013, explains his rationale for responding militarily to the Syrian situation.  Obama states that the Syrian government must be held to the international norm associated with the use of chemical weapons.  He concludes that the Syrian Government is logically the only possible responsible party as he “doesn’t believe that the opposition had access to the weapons deployed.”  Obama insists that we must send a signal that such behavior will not be tolerated.

In Alexandra Hudson’s August 27^th interview with Saleh Muslim, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, Mr. Muslim, arguably no friend to Mr. Assad’s Government, asserts that “Mr. Assad would not be so stupid as to use chemical weapons on a civilian population in his capital while he is winning the war and while the UN investigation continues.”  Mr. Muslim then points out the double standard: if the rebels were using chemical weapons it would be forgotten and the West would ignore the issue.  Both statements are as poignant as they are true.  Mr. Assad is winning the war.  In a few more months the rebellion will be quashed, meanwhile the eyes of America and her allies are watching for any sign of foul play that can be used as a pretext for American involvement.  Why would Assad authorize the deployment of chemical weapons in Damascus on a civilian population—ostensibly loyal to himself, with UN investigators there watching?  What motive could he possibly have?  Why would the rebels bomb the area immediately after the weapons were used?  I don’t know if Mr. Assad used the weapons or not, but logically he has no motive to do so and plenty of reasons to not. Second, what if the rebels were the culprits?  Would America, Britain, and France clamor to attack the rebel forces?  Would they cut off aid to the rebels?  Mr. Muslim believes that the West would ignore such an attack. 

Regardless of who actually used the weapons, our President assumes that the Syrian Government is behind it (and his sources are better than mine) what sort of action do we take?  Do we put boots on the ground?  Do we send in drones or missiles?  Our bombs and guns would affect the civilian population as much, if not more, than Mr. Assad’s alleged chemical strike, whether or not we send them with soldiers or hand them off to the rebels.  Who wins then?  Certainly not the Syrians.  Any strike we authorize is a declaration of war, a war we would win but a war that invites retaliation from Syria, Russia, and Iran and would catapult more civilians, angered by the atrocities of war, towards terrorist groups.

How does Syria effect our interests in the Middle East or globally?  Syria is supported by Russia and Russia has stated that any assaults on Syria will provoke serious consequences.  I don’t know what consequences Vladimir Putin may be contemplating but the least troublesome to us would be for him to shut off all gas to Eastern Europe.  The resulting suffering of the Eastern European civilian populations would be devastating and would not promote Euro-American relations—relations we must improve as we court their entry to NATO and build anti-missile protection devices on their soil that would protect America and Europe from a nuclear armed Iran.  If we do invade, what do we get from Syria?  More debt?  Syria can provide us with nothing of value and will most likely turn into another Afghanistan or another Vietnam. 

Lastly, how do we decide where to intervene and where to live and let live?  It is easy to decide that America will police the entire world but realistically our budget impedes our ability to do this.  Our foreign relations become more challenging as countries lose trust in our ability to successfully solve every problem.  The cold reality is that our policy must be guided by necessity.  We must only intervene in countries where a lack of intervention will harm our interests.  Our government’s responsibility is to us and not to foreign nationals, no matter their circumstances.  Our taxes are for our maintenance.  Our soldiers’ lives are dedicated to our protection.  Must we send them to die in a harsh foreign field where even the ultimate sacrifice on their part will have no lasting benefits for our people? 

If we don’t interfere-- If we let Assad win the war, the war will be over; the suffering will stop for the vast majority of civilians, and likely in the aftermath, serious reforms will be enacted-- Assad’s wife is an active reformer!  If we invade or launch air-strikes we will prolong the violent suffering of the Syrian people by decades and instead of a stable government we will have another Iraq—a state that relies on us for security, support, protection, and in return offers us only mistrust, bitterness, and debt.  No people welcome a foreign invader—even if they are in civil war.  Any invasion of Syria will be a mistake.