Opinion

Compass

How to win the vote — and the war — on Syria

By Nader Mousavizadeh
September 3, 2013

President Barack Obama’s surprise decision to seek congressional authorization for punitive cruise missile strikes against Syrian government targets presents the West with a perhaps final opportunity to align rhetoric with reality, and policy with purpose, in its response to the Syrian civil war.

The bad news is that the White House, by gambling on its ability to convince a recalcitrant Congress to go against an isolationist public mood, has opened itself up to the very real possibility of defeat as its opponents will seek to embarrass what they consider a reluctant, irresolute Commander-in-Chief. The good news is that that path to winning the vote in Washington is paved with setting out a new and credible course for a diplomatic solution to the crisis that can justify an act of war.

This is not the contradiction in terms that the debates in Western capitals to date might suggest. If anything, the complete absence of a definition of strategic success is the single most important source of the disarray that defines the status quo. The schizophrenia at the heart of Western policy to date was on full display throughout the shambolic events in Westminster and Washington over the past week. The failure of David Cameron’s government to win a parliamentary mandate for action, and of the Obama White House to carry through promptly on its red line rhetoric was, in truth, far less about the poisonous legacy of the Iraq war than about the lack of answers to the most basic questions regarding the use of force in Syria.

What are the “strictly limited” cruise missile strikes intended to achieve, besides a vague and inherently intangible attempt to “uphold international norms” — even as they would constitute a clear violation of the U.N. Charter? What do we expect the strikes to have done to the balance of power in the civil war once the dust settles? Is there any evidence to suggest that such pin-prick attacks will change the strategic calculus among Assad’s top generals — the only real threat to his rule? The uncomfortable reality is that no one seems to know, or even care very much — as long the West is seen to have “done something.”

Two years after the beginning of the conflict — and countless lost opportunities to create the genuine global coalition for a political transition in Syria later — the unspoken prevailing sentiment among Western security and intelligence officials is that the only outcome worse than Assad prevailing in the civil war is a victory by a rebel coalition increasingly judged to be dominated by extremists and jihadists whose model for a future Syria looks a lot more like Taliban-era Afghanistan than a pluralist democracy. But to assume that a bloody, deteriorating stalemate between two scorpions in a bottle is the best of a series of bad options mocks our ostensible concern for the people of Syria, ignores the risks of further regional instability and, most importantly, misses the opportunity — even at this late hour — to forge a global alliance for change in Damascus, and an end to the war.

Before this can be done, however, two things are necessary. First, there must be an end to the amateurish U.S. insults directed at those members of the Security Council whose support and engagement is required to achieve a united front against the Assad regime. Until now, this behavior has had the predictable consequence of hardening their opposition to Western policy — even after the regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons — and has left Assad with little to worry about regarding genuine pressure on the pillars of his regime. Second, U.S. and UK officials should go back to the drawing board of strategic interests in the Syria conflict — their own, and those of the key members of the Security Council — where they will discover that there is a great deal more that unites the key powers than divides them.

Neither Russia nor China — the key obstacles to effective Security Council pressure on Assad — wish to see Syria descend into a jihadist haven; they both want a stable government that is considered legitimate and accountable to all parts of the fracturing Syrian polity; they want to avoid another break with the West over the use of military force in the Middle East in violation of the U.N. Charter; they both want to have a say in the future design of a region that is critical to global security.

All of this was clear more than a year ago, when the then-U.N. and Arab League envoy Kofi Annan succeeded in persuading all members of the U.N. Security Council to back his Geneva communiqué calling for a negotiated political transition to a new, broad-based and representative government in Syria. At the time, these efforts were derided by Western hawks and liberals alike as offering succor to the Assad regime whose days were allegedly numbered.

Well, tens of thousands of civilian casualties later, with the destruction of Syria as a viable state nearly complete, and a vital taboo against the use of chemical weapons grossly violated, the Obama administration may recognize that the only thing worse than having to engage in the difficult, often unpalatable give-and-take of great power diplomacy is to have to go it alone, with little prospect of success in achieving anything but the most symbolic and fleeting result.

In the kind of grim irony that only history provides, this week’s G20 summit in St. Petersburg – hosted by none other than Vladimir Putin — offers the world what may the last chance to bring Syria back from brink of a cataclysm. Not only will the permanent members of the Security Council will be present, so will a number of other key regional and global actors. If John Kerry can take a respite from his recent outing as Obama’s Secretary of War, then the the able, shrewd and experienced U.S. Secretary of State should focus all his efforts on crafting a diplomatic strategy to unite the international community.

All of this will be deeply unpalatable to a proud and often self-congratulatory Obama administration: compromising, as in any genuine negotiation, on some of its key priorities; permitting Russia and China to have a serious stake in the region’s future; agreeing to a transition that allows members of the current regime to have a role, without which they will have no incentive to abandon Assad; broadening the negotiating table to ensure that all relevant outside actors, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, have a stake in a new governance structure for Syria. But if the foreign policy legacy of the Obama administration is to be about more than “bearing witness” and “sending messages” amidst the Middle East’s historical upheavals, the hard work of diplomacy must now be done in order to win the vote — and the war.

PHOTO: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about Syria next to Vice President Joe Biden (L) at the Rose Garden of the White House August 31, 2013, in Washington. REUTERS/Mike Theiler

Comments
13 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

If both sides hate the west and Iran is the nuclear treat, we cannot win and this only a distraction to dealing with Iran.

Posted by Samrch | Report as abusive
 

If you want to stop poison gas use just give some to the rebels to take vengeance and deter Assad’s use. Of course if they are as nuts as the news releases make them they may exterminate each other. In any case it would deter others form using poison gas outside the Middle East.

Posted by Samrch | Report as abusive
 

Perhaps we should explain all this to the US Congress this way: Do you really want to go to war with Syria? Do you really want to risk reprisal attacks with chemical agents against Israel? Do you really wish to deal with reprisal attacks by Syrian agents in the US homeland? Has anyone explained to you what happens to the sarin in those munitions when a “limited attack” causes it to be released? Does it ever occur to any of you that there are ways of “sending messages” that are not attached to cluster-bombs and cruise missiles?

Posted by Errata | Report as abusive
 

To call the American public “isolationist” is insulting in several ways. The American public is angry from lies piled on lies, wasted American resources and politicians with other agendas such as supporting their rich American arms manufacturing friends. The War Powers Act clearly delineates that the President has free-reign (for a limited time) to attack when the United States is in eminent danger of attack. Where is the eminent danger? The only danger that is guaranteed is to attack and dare them to attack us back. Now, why would they do that?

Isolationist? Since when is it the job for the United States to regulate all the wars around the globe, especially when the United Nations will not?

A week ago, the anonymous “polls” indicated that 90% of the American public was opposed to military action in Syria. Now, in the past three days, these anonymous “polls” have that figure dropping to 80%, then 70%, then 60%, then 50%. Why is the media lying and so intent on fanning the flames of American involvement in conflicts that are in no way in the interest of the United States (other than saving face for ridiculous statements and increased profits for the American arms manufacturers)?

Posted by ptiffany | Report as abusive
 

To call the American public “isolationist” is insulting in several ways. The American public is angry from lies piled on lies, wasted American resources and politicians with other agendas such as supporting their rich American arms manufacturing friends. The War Powers Act clearly delineates that the President has free-reign (for a limited time) to attack when the United States is in eminent danger of attack. Where is the eminent danger? The only danger that is guaranteed is to attack and dare them to attack us back. Now, why would they do that?

Isolationist? Since when is it the job for the United States to regulate all the wars around the globe, especially when the United Nations will not?

A week ago, the anonymous “polls” indicated that 90% of the American public was opposed to military action in Syria. Now, in the past three days, these anonymous “polls” have that figure dropping to 80%, then 70%, then 60%, then 50%. Why is the media lying and so intent on fanning the flames of American involvement in conflicts that are in no way in the interest of the United States (other than saving face for ridiculous statements and increased profits for the American arms manufacturers)?

Posted by ptiffany | Report as abusive
 

The “West” is clearly not in disarray. What this writer means by the term “the West” is the cluster of pro-Israeli countries.

Israel has not had significant support in Europe for over a decade. And all this business about Syria is about a failure of Israel and its dependents in control of the US Government to rally other countries to the Zionist cause. This is hardly disarray. In fact, only the USA is significantly out of step with the “West”. It is a de facto puppet of Tel Aviv.

This is unlikely to change in Israel’s favor any time soon, and in fact is in tilting toward increasing isolation of the US Government from Western Europe. But the only way to rationally think about Syria and have any clarity is through the eyes of Israel, which sees all of those Arabs and Kurds as enemies. Attack only makes sense for Israel, and so it will happen with US forces only, as ordered.

Posted by usagadfly | Report as abusive
 

No one can “Win” the war in Syria. It is not a war between two parties fighting for a stated goal. It is a symptom of political, Social, and religious changes in the region and MANY parties are involved all trying to influence the “war”. Few care about a specific outcome, just swaying things to improve their positions.

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

@tmc:
This is what is called a Proxy War, where the real war is among the various backers of the conflicts. The people that gain the most are those that profit from arms sales. These Plutocrats exist in the United States, Russia and other countries such as our “allies”, the Saudis and Pakistanis.

The Sunnis and Shi’ites will be at each others throats until their educational level increases, probably taking several generations. Meanwhile, the barbarism of Islam continues. Peaceful religion?! Ha!

Posted by ptiffany | Report as abusive
 

Don’t forget the Kurds!

Posted by tmc | Report as abusive
 

Excellent. Every Congressman should read this.

Posted by matthewslyman | Report as abusive
 

And the ugly news, according to some, is that the Americans have not yet fallen for the repercussion laden, post 2K oriented form of Trick or Treating, entrapment that is being orchestrated for the recreation of a WW1 like scenario only with a different entity being forced, to be unknowingly willing to be in the prospective “winner” slot.

Posted by Swstk | Report as abusive
 

Read on Huffington Post where our government says there is no credible intel regarding attacks from terrorists against our people abroad or at home. Then – another article saying that our government is removing all non-essential government workers and suggesting that US civilians leave Lebanon before any US strikes on Syria.

So – any strike on Syria evidently would unleash terrorist attacks in other countries and possibly in our own on US citizens!

Posted by AZreb | Report as abusive
 

“Justify” an act of war?

Posted by AZreb | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •