A Practical Outlook on the Syrian Crisis

So lets get this straight, Syria is a mess. This isn't some easily fixable mess that you usually have your mom (or maid if you're that pretentious) clean up. This is more like calling in the HazMat team to decontaminate a biohazard explosion. And frankly...that may not be enough. Most of America, and for that matter the Western World, has a pretty provincial outlook on the situation. People are polarized between two camps: those for intervention, and vice versa. Those for intervention continuously bring up the "crimes against humanity" and the need for justice (where was this before the West had an inkling about the sarin gas attacks?). On the other side, there are those who vehemently oppose any sort of intervention whatsoever, asking the U.S. and her allies to stay out of other countries internal issues. These people cite the chaos that ensued in Libya after the Gadhafi regime was toppled as one of their main arguments against any sort of intervention. Others cite the lack of capital to fund such an endeavor.

But let me address those two points before I move on. First, with the issue in Libya, there was not an effective post-operation plan set in place. We trusted the local militias too much that in doing so we gave them power, which in turn has caused struggles and violence throughout the country. If we, however, look at Egypt, a country whose issues we decided to stay far away from, the same amount of chaos and violence ensued after. Riots occur on a day-to-day basis, and now, there is even more bloodshed then there was during the revolution (and this was without any sort of intervention at all). When discussing monetary issues regarding a potential intervention, I will refer to an article NY Times Columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote a few days ago. Kristof states that “A missile strike on Syrian military targets would result in no supplemental budget, so money would come from the existing military pot. In any case, the cost of 100 missiles would be about $70 million — far less than the $1 billion annual rate that we’re now spending on humanitarian aid for Syrians displaced by worsening war and by gas attacks. If a $70 million strike deters further gas attacks and reduces the ability of President Bashar al-Assad to bomb civilians, that might actually save us money in humanitarian spending. All this is uncertain, but the bottom line is that the financial cost of a strike isn’t a reason to acquiesce in mass murder in Syria.” Practically, intervening already makes sense.

But lets look at the bigger picture. What is really going on in Syria? Most of the world thinks of the conflict as one in which brutal and barbaric government troops are fighting and torturing a revolutionary rebel movement. But in reality, the situation is so much more complex. In fact, the rebel’s who we allegorize as “revolutionaries” and fighters against “tyranny” are in fact a split and very dangerous force. There are three main factions within the rebellion: Pro-Western rebels (Free-Syrian army), Kurdish independency fighters, and Al-Queda backed Jihadis (Al-Nusra Front). Surprisingly, it is an essential free for all between each of these groups. On any given day we could see fighting between the Free-Syrian Army and the Al-Nusra Front in towns such as Aleppo, or we could see Kurds battling it out against government forces in northwest Syria in an effort to create their own autonomous state. The real issue in this uprising has been the development and essential rise of the Al-Nusra front. The organization, now blacklisted by the West as a terrorist movement, is one that is well funded and well led. Arabs from across the peninsula who have always looked down upon the Assad Regime have been whole heartily supplying the Jihadi’s with weapons, ammunition, and vehicles. The organization has gained so much grown in the civil war that it currently looks like the favorites to come out victorious. Other organizations, such as the Free-Syrian Army (who have just now been given funding by the west) have struggled to muster the same amount of might as Al-Nusra or the Kurds, and have been manhandled by government and rebel forces. To add to all the chaos, it is now believed that Iranian forces are inside the country working with the Syrian army to target and track down rebel forces. With each passing day, the Pro-Western force has dwindled in size and more importantly, confidence.

With such a complicated scenario in place, I personally think that it’s too late decided on not intervening. With or without UN endorsement, the West needs to get more involved. If the Jihadi movement picks up in Syria, we could be forced to deal with another terrorist breeding ground situation such as those in Mali, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Egypt. Rather than appeasing all sides at conflict, the US and her allies should focus on supporting Pro-Western forces to not only defeat the capable Syrian army, but to also eliminate the pro-fundamentalist groups that are plowing towards Damascus. The Syrian conflict has now been a multi-year civil war, and with each passing month, the situation continues to deteriorate. Although the international community (primarily Russia, China, and Iran) has been applying pressure to the U.S. to stay out of the conflict, getting involved would provide a much more practical outcome in the long run.

While I do have much more to say about this very complicated topic, I do want to hear some of your opinions. Do you think that there are any other ways of going about the crisis? Should we intervene diplomatically, or will full force? Comment and I would love to continue this discussion.  

Kurdish Independence Fighters

Syrian Forces

Members of the Al-Nusra Front

Free Syrian Army Soldiers