Syrian President Bashar Assad warned against Western intervention in his country's 7-month-old uprising, saying such action would trigger an "earthquake" that "would burn the whole region." Assad comments were made against a backdrop of growing calls from anti-regime protesters for a no-fly zone over Syria and increasingly frequent clashes between government troops and army deserters, the most recent of which left at least 30 troops dead Saturday. I still think Western intervention will be appropriate if civilians continue to be hurt in the region.
Syria has gone through drastic changes recently. The Arab League foreign ministers meeting approved sanctions against Syria on Nov. 27, the US Navy has dispatched an aircraft carrier for Syrian coastal waters, and the United States, Turkey and other countries have started evacuating nationals from Syria. These concerns have become the focus of world attention.
Western intervention in the Syrian situation is a strategic consideration that has to do with reshaping the regional order, while the intensity of intervention mainly depends on the development and evolution of the state of affairs. The Western countries, represented by the United States, have increasingly intensified regional intervention to avoid becoming the biggest loser in the wave of the Middle East, and taken different treatments and multiple standards among the Middle Eastern countries according to their needs.
The situations inside and outside Syria have undergone great changes, and the West believes that it is a good time to intervene Syria. First, the Syrian political world has been seriously polarized. After eight months of protests, the opposition has basically established its political and military entities and confronted the al-Assad regime.
Second, the regional situation has become increasingly unfavorable for Syria. The Arab League failed to mediate between the al-Assad regime and the opposition, and blamed the regime for it. After suspending Syria's membership earlier, the Arab League announced political and economic sanctions against Syria on Nov. 27. This has left Syria in an isolated and dangerous condition.
Third, the Western countries have started reconsidering the priorities among countries slated for intervention in the Middle East. The successful military missions in Libya have increased the desire in the West for military intervention.
Western countries military actions would most likely be similar to the Libya situation. The United Nations Security Council would have to vote to authorize military action, including airstrikes against Syrian tanks and heavy artillery and a no-fly zone. Syria’s Air Force doesn’t have the airpower or inventory the United States, Great Britain, or the United Nations has. Their ground to air missiles are out dated and mostly non-operational due to the out of date tech. Precisions strike capabilities along with the ground force intelligence would eventually demoralize and dismantle many of the rebel troops. Western governments will have to learn from their mistakes in past interventions to prevent repeating history however.
Even though Western intervention could help to prevent civilians from being needlessly hurt or killed, the correct route in which to do this has to be carefully understood. That understanding begins with learning from our past. The United States began arming Islamist rebels fighting the leftist government of Afghanistan in July 1979. According to former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the decision to aid these fundamentalist militias was based in part on the hope that it would provoke the Soviets to invade, which they did that December. U.S. support for Islamist rebels dramatically increased in the coming years, with 80% of the aid going to the Hekmatyar faction, the most extremist of the seven major mujahadin factions fighting the Soviets and their Afghan allies. The reason for wanting to encourage a Soviet invasion and to support the opposition group least likely to compromise was the hope that the Soviets would be bogged down in a crippling counter-insurgency war, which would assist Americas Cold War aims. Soviet forces withdrew in 1989, but U.S. support for Hekmatyar continued and a coalition of mujahadin groups kicked out Afghanistan’s leftist government in 1992. Not satisfied with the Islamic coalition government that resulted, Hekmatyar forces bombed the capital of Kabul, killing thousands of civilians and making a stable government impossible. The Taliban allowed use of its territory by the Al-Qaeda network, which served as the base of operations for a series of terrorist attacks against Americans in Africa, the Middle East and finally in the United States itself. Had the United States not supported the extremist Hekmatyar faction and instead backed efforts by the United Nations and others to bring a peaceful settlement to the Soviet occupation and civil war, Afghanistan could have an established a stable government many years earlier and the Taliban would have never come to power.
In 1980 the United States actively supported Iraq’s invasion of Iran, blocking efforts by the United Nations to place sanctions upon Saddam Hussein’s regime for its aggression, and providing the Iraqis with economic and military assistance. Even though Iraq was actively supporting terrorist groups such as Abu Nidal, the United States dropped Iraq from its list of countries sponsoring terrorism in order to send otherwise banned military and technological support. These included the seed stock for Iraq’s anthrax supply,which were used to make biological weapons, and various toxic chemicals. These toxic chemicals were used to make chemical weapons, which the United States said made Iraq enough of a threat to require a U.S.-led invasion in future wars. This Western assisted conflict provided weapons and Western taught military tactics to Iraq, which Western militaries encountered during the war in Iraq after 2003.
There are many long term potential damage considerations with Western involvement. Large companies, such as Shell, will continue to withdrawal causing increased prices and fewer jobs in an already poor nation. This will also affect other countries’ economies, such as Turkey, who is taking in Syrian refugees by the thousands. This is leaving many buildings unoccupied for rebel forces to occupy, and thus making these buildings and industries a target for potential airstrikes. The destruction that will follow these airstrikes will cost millions if not billions to replace and delay Industrial manufacturing out of post conflict Syria. This industrial and economic strain will hinder day to day life of local families and businessman.
A withdrawal plan will be a main topic point with any Western involvement in Syria. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, where a withdrawal plan didn’t seem to exist, an understood and known plan will be required. In that withdrawal plan will need to be a plan to help rebuild the collateral damage. It will be important to impose timelines and hold tight to them, but rebuilding the damage should be the West’s main priority in this plan.
After researching this issue, I still believe it would be appropriate for the Western nations to get involved in the Syrian situation if innocent civilians are being hurt and killed. Should such involvement occur, the West will have to take all the above considerations before making such intense action on Syria.