Red line crossed; intervene in Syria
In 1994, genocide took place in Rwanda where 1 million defenseless civilians were killed due to ethnic cleansing. President Clinton considers his inaction to stop the genocide one of his biggest regrets. A year from now, would President Obama look back at his inaction in Syria and consider it a regret, and if so, at what price?
The Syrian crisis is now entering its third year without any prospect for a realistic solution for the conflict between the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad and the opposition's Free Syrian Army. Nearly 70,000 civilians have been killed and several million refugees been have been displaced in the neighboring countries.
Assad has used everything in his arsenal, including chemical weapons to attack his own people in a series of offensives that rise to the level of war crimes. Russia, Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah, and the sectarian government of Iraq are all supporting his regime to remain in power while the rebellions rely on army defectors, weapons seized from military posts and meager support from some Arab states.
At the beginning of the conflict, President Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by Assad was a game-changer and a red line.
Today, most intelligence agencies confirmed that Assad did in fact use chemical weapons against his people. Yet, the Obama administration still is reluctant to take action. What is the meaning of a red line if it was not enforced? What would this do to our credibility in the world and how would our adversaries treat other declared red lines, such as Iran's possession of a nuclear bomb?
Since the crisis began in 2011, the Obama administration justified its inaction in Syria with a series of pretexts. The first was not to engage in a global crisis while we are engaged in fixing our economy. Since when did we start putting a price tag on freedom and our moral leadership in the world? If so then why are we interfering elsewhere such as Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan?
The second justification was the president's preoccupation with his re-election bid. Isn't this a bit self-serving to put the world on hold until Mr. Obama was re-elected?
The third is the presence of jihadists within the FSA. Even the CIA confirms that not all fighters within the FSA are jihadists. The jihadists poured into Syria in order to seize an opportunity to find a stronghold for themselves there. We still can support the moderate forces within the FSA and help them gain momentum to undermine and eliminate the jihadists.
The fourth is avoiding tension with Russia. Since when do we need to defer to Russia on deciding what is right and what is wrong? Isn't defeating the mullahs in Iran and eliminating terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and state-sponsoring terrorists such as the Assad regime in Syria serving our national interest? What do we do when governments in the Middle East start falling to Russian and Iranian influence simply because we decided to defer to Russia in our foreign policy?
The fifth is avoiding the Iraq debacle. We do not need to repeat the Iraq example in Syria. The FSA is not asking us to fight their war or send American troops to Syria. It is asking us to supply it with effective weapons in order to topple the Assad regime. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more than happy to foot the bill.
The sixth is not acting without United Nations Security Council's resolution. The lack of such resolution is not stopping Russia, Iran, Iraq and Hezbollah from supporting the Assad regime. Why should it stop us from helping end a terrorist regime that had helped al-Qaida in 2003 pour into Iraq and fight our military there, continues supporting the Hezbollah terrorist organization, has strong ties with the criminal mullahs of Iran, had attacked its neighboring countries of Turkey and Lebanon, and was behind the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri?
Finally, the seventh justification for inaction is that our intervention may intensify the crisis and lead to civil war in Syria. Perhaps the news has not reached the Obama administration yet. There is already an ongoing civil war in Syria since 2011.
If all these excuses remain rationalization, would it be possible to conclude that inaction in Syria is caused by leadership fatigue? How should we treat such a fatigue in order to prevent looming threats, such as Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs from endangering world peace and our freedom?
Dr. Alexander Dawoody is associate professor of administrative studies at Marywood University and the president of the Association for Middle Eastern Public Policy and Administration. adawoody@ marywood.edu.