Discussion: (3 comments)
Comments are closed.
Since responding to an allegedly government-led chemical weapons attack with a missile strike on a Syrian air base earlier this month, the administration of President Donald Trump has offered conflicting messages about its ultimate goal in Syria.
In the immediate aftermath, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told ABC News that beyond enforcing a redline on chemical weapons use, “there is no change to our military posture.”
Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, however, told CNN, “There’s not any sort of option where a political solution is going to happen with (Syrian President Bashar) Assad at the head of the regime.”
As for Trump, he’s been all over the map.
After Assad used chemical weapons in 2013, Trump tweeted, “President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside.” After the latest attack, though, he said, “My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.”
So, must Assad go?
Yes, but not simply because of the chemical weapons. After all, Syrian rebels may have used them as well. Rather, Assad must go because he is an impediment rather than an asset in the necessary defeat of the Islamic State.
First, the basics: Assad can deliver neither security nor stability. The ongoing civil war in Syria began with protests that erupted because of Assad’s mismanagement and spread because of his ham-fisted response.
Consider the case of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb: Security forces arrested the 13-year-old during a protest and, weeks later, returned his mutilated body to his parents. Rather than bury their son, they allowed Arabic satellite stations to film his corpse.
The episode was for Syria what the 1955 murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till was for the United States: A point of no return.
Further, Assad does not necessarily want to defeat the Islamic State.
Prior to U.S. air operations over Syria in August 2014, only Assad’s air force had been operating over Syria. Yet these forces did not once bomb the Islamic State’s de facto capital, the Syrian city of Raqqa.
The reason? Assad wants to give Syrians a binary choice: Either support him or fall to Islamic State extremism.
As far as Assad is concerned, the greatest threat to his survival is any politician or group seen as competent and more moderate.
Assad is not an outlier in his tolerance for the Islamic State. He may be secular but he is no secularist.
Captured documents show that during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the underground jihadist railroad into country ran through Syria. Not only were Assad and senior Baath Party members aware of the flow, but they often took money to facilitate it. What Syria subsequently experienced was simply backlash.
So what is the solution? Isn’t the devil we know better than the unknown?
Years of fighting and abandonment have radicalized any remaining moderates who, at any rate, have shown themselves no more capable of stabilizing Syria than Assad.
Fighting may be intense around Idlib and Homs, but parts of Syria are calm and rebuilding. Girls walk to school and municipalities provide water, electricity, and even pick up trash in Syrian Kurdistan.
Along the Mediterranean coast, where Assad’s forces conducted ethnic cleansing, life for those remaining has returned to near-normal.
Rather than engage in grand plans, world leaders should recognize Syria for what it has become: a collection of loosely-linked federal cantons and work to eliminate the terrorists in between.
As for Assad, even the Kremlin has stated that Russia’s support is not unconditional. That provides an opportunity for a swap at the top. With Assad gone, any new face, even one from his inner circle, opens the door to new possibilities.
Following the U.S. military response to a chemical weapons attack in Syria earlier this month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson sat for an interview with ABC News and was asked about the prospect of forcefully removing Syrian President Bashar Assad from office.
On that occasion, his response was right on-target.
“Anytime you go on and have a violent change at the top,” he said, “it is very difficult to create the conditions for stability longer-term.” Tillerson cited the overthrow of former Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi in 2011 as proof. And he could have pointed to Iraq as another country where regime change went wrong. President George W. Bush removed the government of Saddam Hussein with shock and awe in 2003.
American troops are still there today, and the Islamic State has torn the country to pieces. The question now is whether regime change in Syria can yield a good outcome.
And unfortunately, Tillerson has been anything but consistent on the matter, at times indicating steps were underway to remove Assad and at others suggesting the opposite. President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has called Assad, among other things, an “animal.” That’s the kind of term you reserve for someone you want to go after.
The Assad-must-go argument, touted by former Secretary of State John Kerry, is that with so many opposed to Assad in Syria, stability can only come once he is gone. And though Assad is on no one’s short list for sainthood, the problem with Kerry’s line of thinking is that there is no democratic-minded, America-loving, Iran-hating group waiting to take the reins of power in Syria. The Trump-Tillerson aspiration seems to be to install a government in the Kurdish portion of northern Syria that includes the Sunni opposition element.
But the Kurds seem mostly interested in totally separating from any central government in Syria. And the Sunni opposition is in tactical alliance with al-Qaida-related groups that are doing the bulk of the anti-Assad fighting.
Despite the misery engulfing Syria, there is a modicum of normalcy in some parts of the country. Syria has a government based in the country’s Shia minority but into which substantial sectors of the country’s Sunni majority have been drawn.
That is what has held Syria together the last half-century. If that government is destroyed, any semblance of stability will vanish. Regime change will spread chaos to every corner. The government of Syria is the strongest force opposing the Islamic State in that country.
It has the most to lose to the Islamic State threat. Tillerson was on-target when he said that it should be left to the people of Syria to decide what government they will have – even if they have to fight over it.
Hopefully the Trump administration, once it decides what its policy is, will leave them the choice. We have already destabilized much of the Middle East. We plowed fertile ground for terrorists in both Iraq and Libya. We should not go for a trifecta.
John B. Quigley is a distinguished professor of law at the Ohio State University. He is the author of 11 books on various aspects of international law.
Comments are closed.
1789 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036
© 2017 American Enterprise Institute