USA Today
March 15, 2012
Pg. 11
Our View
Act methodically, not impulsively
The parade of horrors from Syria grows longer and bloodier every day.
At least 7,500 civilians are now dead at the hands of President Bashir Assad — and that’s probably a low estimate. It will climb. Reports of torture abound, including images of mutilated children posted on YouTube by oppressed Syrians hoping for help.
Small wonder, then, that calls for U.S. military intervention are beginning to rise, most visibly from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. In Senate hearings last week, McCain pressed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to rally a coalition, modeled after the one that helped topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, and attack Assad’s forces.
Noble thought. But the cavalry will not be charging over the Syrian hills just yet. Nor will bombs and missiles rain on Assad’s shock troops, who this week drove beleaguered rebels from two more cities. In a news conference Wednesday, President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron bluntly cautioned that impulsive retaliation could produce an even bloodier outcome.
If that response is frustrating, it should also strike anyone who has lived through the Afghanistan and Iraq wars as the right one, because the potential for unintended consequences in Syria is at least as great.
Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cited several in response to questioning by McCain and other senators:
*Syria’s Russian-built air defenses are five times as potent as Libya’s to defend one-fifth as much territory. Further, they’re concentrated in urban areas, as are government forces attacking the opposition. TV images of human tragedy inflicted by Assad would be replaced by images of tragedy inflicted by U.S. bombs. The consequences in the Arab world would not be good.
*Even if Assad’s forces were crushed, an objective Dempsey said was attainable, the outcome would be uncertain. The Syrian opposition is fractured along religious, ethnic and political lines, with al-Qaeda components sprinkled in. Catastrophic civil war, a potential outcome, could easily spill over Syria’s borders. Also in play would be an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons 100 times the size of Gadhafi’s.
Preparations for a Libya-like attack are also lacking. Arab participation would be essential, but the Arab League has not signed on as it did for Libya. Nor have NATO nations. French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Wednesday that the French army can’t intervene in Syria without U.N. backing. That’s a distant prospect. Russia and China have twice vetoed resolutions, and Russia is bent on protecting its only Middle East ally.
Even McCain says the U.S. can’t go in alone, no matter the potential benefits, which reach beyond the humanitarian mission. The fall of Assad would eliminate Iran’s most vital ally and weaken Hezbollah, the terrorist organization in neighboring Lebanon that Iran and Syria support — a huge boost for U.S. interests.
What to do?
Despite the blood-soaked images from Syria, the proper course is to methodically align the forces that will remove Assad while limiting the risks, preferably as an alternative to an attack but at least to prepare the way for one. That’s largely a matter of diplomacy, which is showing some results. A few Arab nations have spoken up, and on Wednesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov voiced frustration with Assad’s behavior. Economic sanctions, particularly against Syria’s elite, could also speed his demise. Riskier options include military protection of refugees and arming of rebels, with little certainty about where the weapons would land.
There is, unfortunately, no shortcut that comes without significant risk of creating something worse — an outcome with which the U.S. has had entirely too much recent experience.
Mastermind Century Group 