Art by Sacha Irick
Ten years ago, the Bush administration claimed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq. Today, the Obama administration argues that Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction — specifically sarin nerve gas — against rebel forces in the civil war in Syria.
President Barack Obama called for missile strikes against the Syrian regime in a speech Saturday as punishment for breaking an international norm — or taboo — against chemical warfare which has developed since World War I. Syria never signed on to the treaties banning chemical weapons, but Obama hopes that retaliation against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons will preserve the international norm and send a strong message that the United States won’t tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction.
What’s not to like? The Syrian government will be less likely to use chemical weapons in the future, the international norm against their use will be preserved and the United States will hopefully be on the right side of history in making the world a safer place. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.
President Obama’s biggest concern with regard to action in Syria is blowback; Iran has publicly stated that any U.S. intervention will justify retaliation against American interests in the region, specifically Israel. Whether or not Iran intends to act on these threats is uncertain, but the implications of Iranian involvement will likely be serious. Iran has long been a staunch ally of Syria and has a vested interest in ensuring that the Assad regime remains in power.
There is also indications that Russia would be sympathetic to the Assad regime since it has sold advanced weapons to Syria and consistently blocked any attempt by the United States to pass a U.N. Security Council resolution against Syria. With Russia and Iran potentially backing Syria in the event of a U.S. strike, there is the possibility of another Cold War-style proxy war, or even a more involved — though highly unlikely — war between the U.S. and either Iran or Russia.
While international calls for action exist, the U.K. — which supported the U.S. in its 2003 invasion of Iraq — voted last week not to intervene in Syria, and France has pledged to get involved only if the U.S. leads the charge. This hesitation reflects the very real concern people have about getting involved in another war in the Middle East, even if the intervention is as simple as the president would like it to be.
If the missile strikes against the Syrian regime don’t affect the course of the the ongoing civil war, the best case scenario is simply that no more people will die as a result of chemical weapons, though the tragic truth is that many more people will die in the fighting before the war ends. On the other hand, if U.S. action is effective in either toppling the Assad regime or weakening it to the point where the rebels have a chance of winning, all signs point to even more bloodshed as various rebel groups attempt to gain dominance in whatever post-war order is established.
Due to several similarities, Iraq offers the most likely picture of what Syria will look like after the war: Both countries were ruled by minority governments, which used the constant threat of violence to maintain order. The Sunni minority in Iraq under Saddam Hussein ruled over the Shiite majority, and after Hussein was removed, sectarian violence between the two groups has remained high. Syria has been ruled by the minority Alawite sect of Shiite Islam, and the rebel forces include many Sunnis who see an opportunity to seize control of the country from the minority. No matter the outcome of the war, thousands more deaths are likely to occur, and even if the U.S. gets involved, the similarities between Syria and Iraq mean any benefits from intervention would be extremely costly in lives and money — two things Americans are much more sensitive to after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With low public support for an attack on Syria and a high political cost to unilaterally introduce the U.S. military to hostilities, President Obama has called on Congress to decide whether or not to authorize military action. About 100 lawmakers returned to Washington, D.C., on Sunday for a classified briefing on the situation, but Congress will not return from its summer recess until Sept. 9, when it will decide how to proceed. This could be a defining moment for a Congress which has accomplished almost nothing, and it is more important than ever to make sure everyone is aware of the significance of intervening in Syria or not before any rash decisions are made.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Follow Patrick Rear on Twitter: @pgrear92
Follow Sacha Irick on Twitter: @GraphicSacha
As published in the Sept. 5 issue of the Pepperdine Graphic.
