A crisis is occurring in Syria at the moment, though many do not know what kind of crisis to classify it as. Is it a humanitarian crisis, a political crisis, an ethnic crisis? The list continues. The problem with trying to analyze the civil war in Syria at the moment is that so many factors play into the mess and are jumbled together. The US has been expected by many to take a leading role in stopping Syria’s war. However, the US has been a hesitant player, unsure of whether to step in and even more so how to step in.
The
conflict in Syria is a war between two opposing religious Islamic factions: the
Sunnis and the Shiites. Syria is led by
Bashar-al Assad, an ally of the Shiites. However, the Sunni are
the majority in Syria and are demanding Assad’s fall of power. Assad has so far
been successful in staying in power. He has used strong military force to destroy
the opposition. He targets towns that are mainly filled with opposition members
and uses planes to fire at and bomb the Sunnis. Assad has killed 20,000 people
(mostly civilians) and there are currently around 340,000 Syrian refugees. The opposition
groups have not been successful because they are scattered and lack the weapons
to fight back. Unlike the revolution in Libya, Syria does not have one main
opposition group, they have many. A big one is the Syrian National Council,
which wants to overthrow Assad and create a democratic state, and asks the
international community for help. Another main opposition group is the National
Coordination Committee, which does not want international military help.
Another important group is the Free Syrian Army. These opposition groups are
unable and unwilling to unite leadership and visions.
Many
international players have taken steps to support the Assad regime downfall or conversely
have taken steps to ensure that Assad stays in power. The UN has attempted to
pass three resolutions to end the conflict in Syria, all of which have been
vetoed by China and Russia. Both of these states are major trade and military
partners with Syria. They do not want to put sanctions on Syria because to do
so would hurt them economically. The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership
and put economic sanctions on Syria. However, they gave up efforts for peace
after the UN was continuously unable to help out the League. Turkey, Saudia
Arabia, and Qatar all want Assad to step out of power, and have helped the
opposition. The EU has imposed various sanctions on Syria, which has resulted
in a $4 billion loss to Syria. Syria mainly relies on economic aid from Russia,
Iran, and Iraq. Iran is Syria’s major ally in the region, and a strong Assad
regime equals a strong Iran.
The
US, however, has been unwilling to take a hardline approach on Syria. So far
the US has imposed various sanctions on Syria. For months Obama gave Assad time
to change his regime to a more democratic one. In May Obama announced, "President Assad now has a choice: He
can lead that transition, or get out of the way". The problem with getting involved is that Syria is so
complicated. There is no black and white solution. There are also many factions politically, ethnically, and
religiously that complicate the problem. The question is, should the US
intervene or not?
A
realist would ultimately argue for US intervention. Realism focuses on
survival. A main part of survival is minimizing or destroying threats to US’s
security. Currently, Iran is one of America’s main threats because it is
building its nuclear capabilities. Assad’s Syria and Iran are extremely
interdependent, and overthrowing Assad would directly weaken Iran. According to
Central Command chief General James Mattis, overthrowing Assad would be “the
biggest strategic setback for Iran in 20 years”. Realists can argue for
self-help-opportunity cost: that the US should not give resources to help the
Sunnis in Syria because we could use those resources to build up our own power.
However, realism also points to the idea of the zero-sum game. If we weaken
Iran by overthrowing Assad, America must become stronger. In this case the
balance of power is more important than the building up of absolute power. The
US already has the largest military and economy in the world. Though build-up
of power resources is important, the US must also use some of those resources
to lessen Iran’s power. According to Daniel Byman, “Syria is Iran's oldest and closest Arab
ally, has long opposed Israel, has backed Palestinian terrorist groups, and, at
times, has aided anti-U.S. forces in Iraq”. Therefore, in a realist
view, the Assad regime is our enemy. Assad in power directly enhances Iran’s
threat against the US. The idea of the zero-sum game can also be applied to
Russia and China, who are Syria’s allies and major power threats to the US.
Although realists are advocates of sovereignty
and non-intervention, overthrowing Assad would not be because the US is trying
to spread democracy or stop human rights abuses. Rather, in realist terms, it
would be a direct action against Iran in attempts to weaken our enemy. Many
argue that if we overthrow Assad then the Sunnis will take over and kill all of
the Shiites. The US is scared of being the catalyst to such a blood bath. However,
realists would argue that our only responsibility is to that of our own security.
In an anarchical world, we must act solely in pursuit of our own interests.
Additionally, the US cannot wait for the UN to overthrow Assad. The UN is not a
state, and therefore is not a legitimate authority. Realists do not see the UN
as having any power over states. Therefore, it is in the hands of the US to
take action in Syria.
There are many different arguments and approaches for
whether or not the US should take direct action in Syria. Both side’s arguments
are legitimate, which may be causing the hesitation in Washington about what
steps to take. However, a realist would predict that the US will soon overthrow
Assad because the US will realize the direct security benefits of destroying
the regime.
Works
Cited
Badran,
Tony. Obama’s Options in Damascus. Foreign
Affairs. August 16, 2011. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68129/tony-badran/obamas-options-in-damascus
Byman,
Daniel. Preparing for Failure in Syria. Foreign
Affairs. March 20, 2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137339/daniel-byman/preparing-for-failure-in-syria
Cohen,
Richard. In Syria, it’s Past Time for the
United States to Act. Washington Post. August 13, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-syria-its-past-time-for-the-united-states-to-act/2012/08/13/fec1bcce-e57c-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html
Diehl,
Jackson. Why the U.S. Should Intervene in
Syria. The Washington Post. March 18, 2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-the-us-should-intervene-in-syria/2012/03/15/gIQAGbpSLS_story.html
Masters, Jonathan. Syria’s Crisis and the Global Response. Council of Foreign Relations. October 29, 2012. http://www.cfr.org/syria/syrias-crisis-global-response/p28402
Murphy, Richard. Why Washington Didn’t Intervene In Syria Last Time. Foreign Affairs. March 20, 2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137341/richard-w-murphy/why-washington-didnt-intervene-in-syria-last-time?page=2
Weiss, Michael. What it Will Take to Intervene in Syria. Foreign Affairs. January 6, 2012. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137013/michael-weiss/what-it-will-take-to-intervene-in-syria
And what do you think will happen? Do you believe that the US will act along a realist path and aid the Syrian rebels, or do you believe that it will simply allow the civil war to run its course? Or somewhere in between?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the the US will end up intervening in Syria. There are people who argue that the Sunnis are fighting for democracy, and they are expecting the US to aid them. The US has made it our responsibility to help those who fight for human rights, and some people internationally and domestically would criticize the US for turning our backs on the people of Syria. However, right now the majority of the American people do not want our government to intervene. The people are tired of wars and want to focus on rebuilding our economy. In the past 11 years, the US public has witnessed how a war oversees can drain our economy. The US people do not want a repeat. Also, the US government does not want to be responsible for causing a blood bath in Syria by allowing the Sunnis to take over and kill the Shiites.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if the US was to help overthrow Assad, we would have to spend many resources to help the Sunnis enstate a democracy. Since the opposition forces are so split up, they would not be able to successfully enstate a new government by themselves. The US would have to become deeply invovled in the transition of governments, which would cost us a lot of money. Our intervention in Libya cost us over $1 billion, and an intervention in Syria would cost even more.
Though overthrowing Assad would weaken Iran, the US government is confined to the wishes of the American public. Realists overlook the power of the public over their government.
Thanks for the post Anwen! My question is on whether or not a realist would really advocate intervention in Syria. Any sort of intervention would at least cost the US money and possibly lives, and what would the US gain? What evidence is there that a new regime will be any better for the US than Assad is currently? If Assad is overthrown, the new regime could very well be just as good an ally to Iran as it is now and pursue policies just as unfavorable toward the US if not more so. Furthermore, a new Sunni-led regime could look for revenge against Shiites, causing further instability or could threaten Israel, the US's only ally in the area. Does intervention really guarantee increased security for the United States and constitute a worthwhile cause?
ReplyDeleteHi Jeremy, thanks for the questions.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your first question I'd reiterate what I said in my blog post:
"Realists can argue for self-help-opportunity cost: that the US should not give resources to help the Sunnis in Syria because we could use those resources to build up our own power. However, realism also points to the idea of the zero-sum game. If we weaken Iran by overthrowing Assad, America must become stronger. In this case the balance of power is more important than the building up of absolute power. The US already has the largest military and economy in the world. Though build-up of power resources is important, the US must also use some of those resources to lessen Iran’s power"
For your next question about the new regime being any better for the US than Assad's, if we were to intervene we'd have control and power in Syria, and would possibly have the power to create and influence the new regime so that it acts favorably to the US. If we intervened and stayed in Syria, we could also mantain stability between the Sunnis and the Shiites.