Syria - things are going faster but where are they going?

Syria: things are going faster — but where are they going?

Dan Smith writes about the military air strikes planned against the Assad government.

Air strikes are bad for Syria. Cynthia Yildrim

The possibility of military action against the Assad government by western countries is now more and more real. But what kind of military action? And why? All this is very unclear.

Evidence

There was evidence of many people dead in Damascus on Wednesday 21 August. Médecins sans Frontières gave clear, independent evidence of the deaths. Over 3,000 patients showed signs of chemical poison on the morning of the attack. 355 died. Only five days after the attack, more activity was reported at the British Akrotiri air base in Cyprus. There was a UN team in Syria finding out about stories of the use of chemical weapons both sides. The UN team were helped by Russia and Iran to look at the new attack sites. But as the team started work, unknown gunmen shot at them.

For many people, evidence is the most important thing - especially after it was found that Iraq didn’t have nuclear weapons. The conservative British newspaper, The Telegraph is clear that military action must be legal This means the evidence must be certain.

But it is not clear how far the evidence will go. The UN team is there to collect blood and soil to see what happened. But they are not asked to find out who did it. At the end of their work we may have evidence of a terrible crime but by who? Reports say US analysis of the evidence will be given in the next few days. But if the US does not have a team on the ground and does not want to give its information, it’s difficult to see what more evidence it will show.

I think the evidence is not the most important part of the story. It is clear that if there is evidence of a terrible crime, that does not mean that all actions that follow are right.

Action

The most likely action seems to be air or missile strikes and perhaps more arms for the anti-Assad forces. Now military action on the ground seems unlikely. Thankfully. I think that the US does not want full military action to help the anti-Assad forces to win. And the US does not want a long war.

It’s a terrible situation for the people of Syria. I am not surprised to find the realist Edward Luttwak, one of the authors of the article, ‘Give War a Chance’, giving his opinion in the New York Times at the weekend. He says that a situation in Syria which cannot change is the only possibility for the US. He says it can be done by giving arms to the opposition until they are doing well, then not giving them arms until they are doing badly. Then arming them, then not.

Limited strike

The most likely action is a limited missile strike. This has no risk of a major military action but there is nothing more that is good about it.

If the idea is help the opposition, a limited strike will not help them. But there are some supporters of a missile strike who will say that this is part of the idea.

British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has given reasons for this. He said that the action would be an answer to the use of chemical weapons and nothing more. He said that we are not trying to change the Assad government and we are not trying to stop the civil war in Syria. Labour leader Ed Miliband agrees. He says that a strike against Assad must be to stop the future use of chemical weapons.

This seems likely to become the opinion of most politicians. But I think it is completely mad. And it is cruel, too.

The success of limited strikes

It is cruel because Syrians will become hopeful that Assad will lose. But this will not happen.

And it is mad for two reasons. First, there is no reason to think it will be successful.

What happened in the past?

We remember US missile strikes against al-Qaeda in the 1990s. I do not think that they caused 9/11 but they did nothing to stop it. And we remember the US air strikes against Libya’s Qadafi in 1986. Again, I don’t think they caused the Lockerbie bombing two years later but they did nothing to stop it.

Second, it is mad because you cannot have missile strikes in a country in a civil war and think you are having no effect on the civil war. If Assad’s forces have used chemical weapons, that is as part of the civil war. Missile strikes without a clear idea of the big picture is mad.

A peaceful aim needs peaceful action

And that is the problem. The big picture for missile strikes is slowly making Syria weak and its main supporter, Iran. The big picture that might bring peace to Syria does not include missile strikes.

It is not an easy argument to make. Anger about the use of chemical weapons is the obvious reaction. But anger does not always make good political planning. Western leaders need to understand three things:

1. They cannot do it alone.

2. If they want military action, it will not be easy.

3. If they prefer talking, this will involve talking with Russia, Iran, Syria, and others.

The use of chemical weapons is terrible. But nothing about them changes the politics of peace in Syria. If that is not the main aim of western leaders, then their thinking is wrong. If it is the main aim, then missile strikes are wrong.

Dan Smith is Secretary General of International Alert, based in London, and former Director of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). He is also author of The State of the World Atlas, ‘The Atlas of War and Peace’ and ‘The State of the Middle East’.

As this article has been simplified, the words, text structure and quotes may have been changed. For the original, please see: http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/08/28/syria-the-pace-quickens-but-towards-what/