SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home What About Dara’a?

WASHINGTON DIARIST JUNE 9, 2011

What About Dara’a?

BY LEON WIESELTIER

The reformer has responded to the democratic stirrings in his country with a war against its children. The murder and mutilation of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb is only the most shocking instance of Bashar al Assad’s mercilessness. The Syrian uprising originated in March as an expression of anger at the arrest and torture of fifteen boys, who were accused of scrawling anti-government graffiti in the town of Dara’a, which has now earned a place of honor in the geography of modern dissent. The crowd that demonstrated for the release of the boys was fired upon, lethally, by Syrian security forces. In April, witnesses reported that the hooligans of the mukhabarat were beating children. One man who was caught in the crackdown in Dara’a recounted that he shared a cell with three hundred seventy people and seventy of them were children. I take these terrible particulars from “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror”: Crimes Against Humanity by Syrian Security Forces, a remarkable report issued by Human Rights Watch last week. The document gives evidence also of the Assad regime’s other obscene acts against its people. A crowd chanting, “Peaceful, peaceful,” was met by “an ambush.” “Security forces were everywhere,” a witness said, “in the fields nearby, on a water tank behind the checkpoint, on the roof of a nearby factory, and in the trees, and the fire came from all sides.” Another person on the scene recalled that “they were deliberately targeting people. Most injuries were in the head and chest.” There was also organized government violence against medical workers: “I saw a man who tried to pull the wounded guy away, but security forces continued to shoot. ... They again shot the wounded guy, this time in the head, and hit the rescuer as well. ... Another man tried to take a dead body away on the motorcycle, but as he tried to approach, he got shot in the shoulder, then again in the leg, and when he fell off and other people made a move toward him, a sniper hit him in the head, and I believe he died.” The conclusion reached by “We’ve Never Seen Such Horror” is that “Human Rights Watch believes that the nature and scale of the abuses committed by the Syrian security forces, the similarities in the apparent unlawful killings and other crimes, and evidence of direct orders given to security forces to ‘shoot-to-kill’ protestors, strongly suggest these abuses qualify as crimes against humanity.”

 

The day after Human Rights Watch accused the government of Syria of crimes against humanity, Hillary Clinton declared that “the legitimacy that is necessary for anyone to expect change to occur under this current government is, if not gone, nearly run out.” Nearly? What else does the Syrian tyrant have to do to persuade the American secretary of state that the purpose of his regime is not reform? The clumsiness of this administration in the saga of Arab democratization sometimes seems irremediable. Only a few weeks ago the president delivered a grand address at the State Department in which he reoriented American policy, which had been chilly and slow, firmly in the direction of the promotion of democracy. Some even called it Obama’s neoconservative moment. The president rejected “a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of [American] interests” (which he weirdly imputed to the Bush administration) in favor of “a set of core principles”—universal rights, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, gender equality, and “the right to choose your own leaders”—and proclaimed that “our support for these principles is not a secondary interest—today I am making it clear that it is a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions.” Obama’s speech was stirring, but it was strange. Nothing in his response to the Arab revolts—or almost nothing: he was indeed moved by the fate of Benghazi, though the fate of Tripoli seems to exercise him less—prepared one for the intensity of its idealism. Having been unaccountably cool, Obama became unaccountably hot. About Syria, he remarked that “the Syrian people have shown their courage in demanding a transition to democracy. President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition, or get out of the way.” Of course Assad had already demonstrated by his actions that he rejects such a choice. Obama’s “get out of the way” about Assad reminded me of his “must go” about Qaddafi. The president is still dogmatically spooked by American support for regime change, even when it is not the work of Americans, but of Syrians or Libyans (or Iranians). As Assad’s atrocities multiply, I see no “concrete actions,” no consequential American response to them.

 

This is, strictly speaking, doubly unfortunate, because the undoing of Bashar al Assad would vindicate both our values and our interests. Foreign policy crises come in three varieties. There are those that broach American values but not American interests, and those that broach American interests but not American values, and those that broach American values and American interests. Sometimes the values-interests calculus is not clear, but the question of American action still turns on some interpretation of it. I know of nobody who believes that we should not act when our interests (or our vital ones, however they are defined) are at stake but our values are not. Most of the debates about humanitarian intervention, by contrast, the quarrels between “realists” and “idealists,” concern those cases, and they are sickeningly plentiful, in which our values are at stake but our interests are not, or at least not significantly. But Syria is one of the easy cases in which we have moral and strategic incentives for action. The moral case against Assad is obvious; but his defeat would represent also a defeat for Iran, and Hezbollah, and Hamas, his allies, and therefore a strategic achievement for us and our allies. He thwarts our regional designs at every turn. He impedes an Israeli-Palestinian peace. He aids and abets terrorism. He turns to North Korea for a nuclear facility. We should do whatever we can to assist his people in deposing him. I recognize the view that stability in Syria may be preferable to the political and religious and tribal chaos that may ensue from Assad’s fall, but the days of stability in Syria seem to have passed. The unbelievably brave people in the streets of Syria’s cities and towns do not deserve to be so lonely in the world. If a new Middle East is being born, its attitude toward America and Americanism will be substantially determined by what it remembers about our part in its birth.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article originally ran in the June 30, 2011, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 48 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

48 comments

"But Syria is one of the easy cases in which we have moral and strategic incentives for action." Translation... we need another war! This should be a piece of cake; we drop a few bombs here and there, mind you no boots on the ground, a predator drone or two, and the Syrians will be welcoming us as liberators. Another translation... If we can just get rid of Assad, we'd kill five birds (yes, five birds) with one drone, er..., I mean one stone - Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas, while paving the way for lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace. Oh yeah, we really do need another war! Yet another translation... Assad has turned rogue. Like Qaddafi, we didn't realize this until now, we knew not his capacity to kill thousands; we thought he was different from his papa who did not hesitate to kill at least 10,000. Now that Assad has shown his true colors we ought to take him out. Did I mention we really really need another war? Yet still another translation... Defense stocks could take a beating with the US slated to pull out of Iraq, and Afghanistan troop drawdown looming. Another war is the solution.

- wkwami

June 9, 2011 at 2:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr Wieseltier writes: "We should do whatever we can to assist his people in deposing him." What's that supposed to mean? It should be abundantly clear by now that the Assad regime cannot be toppled by international sanctions any more than Kim Jong-Il or Muammar Qadaffi. That leaves war as the only alternative and Mr Wieseltier is implicitly supporting that because he writes we "should do whatever we can" and war is surely something we can do. In fact, it is the only thing we can do to get rid of Assad. So it's to be another war. It never ends. It's always war war war.

- DC Spence

June 9, 2011 at 9:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Every thinking and feeling human being ought to be outraged by the daily news out of Syria and I concur with LW's dismay at the rhetorical soft-pedaling of Assad by the State Department and some other US officials. That said, there is no one in the US Congress -- not even Joe Lieberman or John McCain -- who thinks that the US should intervene militarily in any capacity in the Syrian uprising. If LW wants to stake out a position that America should deploy some phantom military capability against Syria at this time, he should do so, preferably after doing some research on current US global troop deployments and available military resources. If he can't or won't do that, then he ought to propose some more concrete, non-military steps for the US to "do whatever we can to assist" the Syrians in deposing Assad. At least it could establish LW's reputation as a serious thinker on global issues rather than a garden-variety Northwest DC armchair pundit.

- wildboy

June 9, 2011 at 9:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Maybe if Human Rights Watch hadn't spent years demonizing Israel in a manner that eclipsed reporting on violations of basic human rights in neighboring countries, we would have seen this coming a long time ago, and taken appropriate measure to try to nip it in the bud rather than intervene in full-scale civil conflict.

- roqabs

June 9, 2011 at 10:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with everyone else, if waving your arms and wishing Assad would go would be sufficient to make him go, who is not for that? This is fundamentally different than Libya, there the lines were clearly drawn, the rebels held their territory and the government its own, intervention was pretty clear cut. I see nothing like this in Syria. No air war can solve this, it would take an invasion. But if LW is all set for war, I know a country that should be able to make short order of Assad and it just so happens to be in the neighborhood. Why doesn't LW advocate Israel take overwhelming action against Syria by invading? They could claim as pretext the recent provocations in the Golan heights.

- blackton

June 9, 2011 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As Assad’s atrocities multiply, I see no “concrete actions,” no consequential American response to them." LW Is LW calling for war? I am not sure. Why dd he put "concrete action" in quotes? LW needs to spell out what he means by the phrase. In any case, I doubt an invasion would get rid of Assad, especially an Israeli invasion. Such action would rally the Syrians around their government. This is the last thing that should happen.

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 10:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting article: "Israel, Ireland and the peace of the aging" By Spengler http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MF07Ak01.html

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 12:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My voice to the chorus: what was the point of this article? The situation in Syria is atrocious, horrific, nightmarish, yes; all agree. But this article is headlined on the front page as "We must do more to help Syrians oust Assad." What, exactly? Go to war? We can't. I would support it in principle, but we're already in three wars with an overstretched and exhausted military. So what else? Obama on the tube every day calling for his ouster? Airdrops of weapons? Was the whole thought behind this article to simply yell, "Do something!"?

- janus

June 9, 2011 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting, yes, but nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

- noga1

June 9, 2011 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

""We must do more to help Syrians oust Assad." What, exactly? " How about Obama pressuring the Arab League to do something about it? Assad may not care about Western condemnations but he will be more open to hearing Arab condemnations. Is the Arab league up to it?

- noga1

June 9, 2011 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Arab League is there to do nothing. All they know how to do is condemn Israel. They can't agree on anything else.

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 1:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm with Arnon on this one in two respects: this is not a call for war; and W. should outline the steps he has in mind in the way of “concrete actions,” "...consequential American response" with a perhaps a few thoughts on some pros and cons. Moral exhortation is fine up to a point but after that point, it, without more, loses its potency. That point, I think, exists here.

- basman

June 9, 2011 at 2:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon, I read the link. Peace will come when there are no more young men for us old men to send to die for us? Right up there with Lysistrata as a likely formula for peace. Or for that matter, Day of the Dolphin Then are stories such as the Golem, and R.U.R. Somebody save us from ourselves!

- skahn

June 9, 2011 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1: "How about Obama pressuring the Arab League to do something about it? Assad may not care about Western condemnations but he will be more open to hearing Arab condemnations. Is the Arab league up to it?" Hmmm... If I recall correctly, the hapless Arab League was pressured into taking action on Libya. The Libya thing is still ongoing, spearheaded largely by the very same Western powers that someone like Assad may or may not care about. The point is, there are very limited options short of a full scale war in this instance. LW's objectives can best be achieved by going to war, so let's not pretend he is saying anything other than that. If LW disagrees, then let him state clearly what concrete actions he is advocating.

- wkwami

June 9, 2011 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found the demographic info, if nothing else, interesting, skahn. Of course old men have been known to bite. Still, their lack of teeth is a problem.

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 3:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm normally fairly sympathetic to TNR's (usually) liberal interventionist foreign policy line...but I'm with the majority of commenters. What is there to be done, short of war? We're already in two wars, and doing the logistics for a third...and Syria is strategically more difficult than Lybia. It's true, both morality and self-interest seem to call out for us to undermine the Syrian regime, but WHAT, short of war, should we do? Are there any realistic options...?

- Curran1

June 9, 2011 at 4:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Advocating military intervention in Syria is madness. It's hard to understand how a very intelligent, eloquent man who's clearly lived a full life can agitate for it. Still, that doesn't take away from the fact that Assad has been getting off easy. (Poor Gadaffi even tried paying off Goldman Sachs and still the mass rapist is shufffling from hospital to hospital in the depth of the night. Probably looking at Assad and thinking, "fuck, I'm getting screwed, at least I haven't tortured kids to death....in ages.)

- IggyPop

June 9, 2011 at 5:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, Leon has a doctorate in Jewish studies. Jewish studies. Not military logistics in Arab countries experiencing civil war. Not diplomacy in the middle East and possibly the CIA's role in it. It's Jewish studies. Just Jewish studies. Another very intelligent but very arrogant self-regarding man. Somehow, he thinks his IQ points make him omniscient. But then, I have that problem with most Op Ed writers. Love Paul Krugman, but when he's writing about the economy and finance. Not when he's trying to tell Obama how to win politically.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 9, 2011 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The last post above is nuts: "Wieseltier was born in Brooklyn, New York and attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush, Columbia University, Oxford University, and Harvard University, and was a member of Harvard's Society of Fellows from 1979 to 1982." One of his books at Amazon 'Against Identity" is selling for $294.99. http://www.amazon.com/Against-Identity-Leon-Wieseltier/dp/188438112X/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_1

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What Mr. Wieseltier is talking about is starting another war. There's really no other interpretation. How many wars would he have us involved in at once? Are we just supposed to sign up for a perpetual state of war funded by the Chinese? And he thinks that's in the U.S.'s "interests"? It's certainly not in mine.

- ATLeft

June 9, 2011 at 10:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, we're all rightfully worked up, but let's face it, no one important is listening to the pompous fool anyway.

- bunthorne

June 9, 2011 at 11:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No thread is complete till the donkey brays: bunthorne "Well, we're all rightfully worked up, but let's face it, no one important is listening to the pompous fool anyway." Charlie Rose for one is listening and he is has a lot of viewers. http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/385 I don't think, btw, that W is talking about going to war with Syria.

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 11:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LW's article bunthorne was also posted on npr: http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2011/jun/09/new-republic-simply-put-america-must-help-syria/

- arnon

June 9, 2011 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Like I said, anyone important. But honestly, arnon, I agree with you, I don't really see a call for more war here. Basically, he wants us to do something, anything, which is a nice sentiment, but as mentioned above by several, there's not a whole lot to be done. So, Leon's nice words end up just that, more words.

- bunthorne

June 10, 2011 at 12:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, Arnon, so your point is . . . ? He didn't study the middle-East politics. I wouldn't ask my brilliant endocrinologist to perform surgery on my back. Furthermore, I really don't think the asking price of Leon's last book is any indication of how qualified he is to opine on what our next step in the middle East should be. He can be a brilliant writer, and I've often enjoyed reading him, but he can just as often be muddled, ponderous, and self-righteous. "Wieseltier was born in Brooklyn, New York and attended the Yeshivah of Flatbush, Columbia University, Oxford University, and Harvard University, and was a member of Harvard's Society of Fellows from 1979 to 1982." Yes, I also looked up his bio on Wikipedia. And it wasn't really edifying, so I searched elsewhere and discovered, as I wrote above, that his area of expertise is Jewish studies. So I'll agree--at times, when he bothers, he can be great, Ibut I'd expect more judiciousness from him. And his lack thereof is especially irksome as he's never served. He was twenty when Viet Nam ended. He's old enough to remember the costs of messy wars. And yet never have I read in any of his pieces any acknowledgement of lost lives--mind you, under-class and working-class lives. If he wants all these wars, he should be more specific--specifically calling for a universal draft. One that even smart yeshiva bruchs from Flatbush can't get out of.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 10, 2011 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't think, btw, that W is talking about going to war with Syria." So, what is he talking about, arnon? Did you notice how he implied that the war against Qhaddafi is not full scale enough?

- scrubby

June 10, 2011 at 1:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon Wieseltier writes "The president is still dogmatically spooked by American support for regime change, even when it is not the work of Americans, but of Syrians or Libyans (or Iranians)." What proof does he have about that? Like his pal, Marty, Wieseltier seems to pull his "facts" out of his ass.

- scrubby

June 10, 2011 at 1:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

a) To the best of my recollection LW has an MA in Jewish Studies not a PhD. He may have started a PhD but never completed it. b) The Yeshiva of Flatbush is not a classical yeshiva that would qualify LW as a "yeshiva bochur". YoF is a co-ed Jewish, quintessentially modern orthodox high school modeled after the classical Israeli religiously oriented public high schools (as opposed to the Israeli yeshiva high schools). As such it has a strong religious Zionist orientation. Many of its graduates have ended up in Israel (like this one). The language of instruction for Jewish studies at YofF is Hebrew. Yes, I knew LW in high school. He was two years behind me. c) Libya is dragging on because the EUniks & the USA forgot or ignored the Powell doctrine - if and when you decide to use armed force, use overwhelming forces. In the long run it will cost less in lives and treasure. d) I am no fan of Assad (as you may well have guessed) and trust him as far as I could throw him. I think all those (e.g., John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ethan Bronner, probably Obama, Uri Savir, LW(?), Danny Kurtzer (whose wife attended YofF), Martin Indyk, Gabby Ashkenazi (reportedly), Ehud Olmert & others) who during these past few years dreamed of the "grand bargain" where Israel would give up the Golan to Syria which ostensibly would peel Assad away from Iran & Hezbollah were naive fools, at best. Given that Assad has no compunction about slaughtering his own people, do you really think he could be trusted with the Golan, in the long run? It will be interesting to see if more Golan Druze elect to convert their permanent residency in Israel to full citizenship (its their option). All this said, if Assad & Alawites do fall, I am highly skeptical that what will follow will come close to barely resembling a Jeffersonian democracy. Just watch what is brewing in Egypt (see here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/in-egypt-islamist-salafist-movement-vies-for-political-power-in-wake-of-revolution/2011/06/02/AGw9ulNH_story.html?hpid=z3). I suspect that the most likely outcome in Syria will be a tribal & confessional civil war. The idea of a "Syrian people" is as fanciful as was the idea of a "Yugoslavian people". e) And saving the best for last, Israel Radio said today that a Lebanese (?) newspaper (I forgot the name, but not "The Star") reported that the Syrian leadership is debating launching a war against Israel in order to re-unite the country and in all events divert attention away from the army's brutal suppression of the citizens' protests. I guess they also may want to exploit the fact that the army has already warmed-up in the bullpen. So Blackie you may get your wish (not my wish - my sons & son-in-law would likely be fighting this one; especially my oldest son who Gd willing is about to become a father) courtesy of the Syrians themselves. Shabbat Shalom - שבת שלום Hershel Ginsburg (YofF Class of '68) Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

June 10, 2011 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

bunthorne "Like I said, anyone important." Meaning bunthorne....

- arnon

June 10, 2011 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON is still ignorant. She certainly has no notion about what an intellectual is. There was a time when most NY intellectuals were derided because they had no Ph.D. Today graduate students are writing Ph.D. studies on them. The same for Kenneth Burke an even more influential intellectual with less formal education: "He was born on May 5 in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA and graduated from Peabody High School, where his friend Malcolm Cowley was also a student. Burke attended Ohio State University for only a semester, then studied at Columbia University in 1916-1917 before dropping out to be a writer. In Greenwich Village he kept company with avant-garde writers such as Hart Crane, Cowley, Gorham Munson, and later Allen Tate.[1] Raised Roman Catholic, Burke later became an avowed agnostic."

- arnon

June 10, 2011 at 9:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does that have to do with the fact that Leon writes what he doesn't know? It's fine for him to proclaim, from a moral and philosophical point of view, that we shouldn't be standing by (ridiculous). However, Leon never cops to anything. Hence all this blather that does not stand up to any kind of reason. It's all indignation. But if he really had to think it through, he'd have already addressed the inevitable arguments (including yours) that popped up here. Or, better yet, because he has no true understanding of the issues posters have raised concerns about, he'd cop to his lack of expertise. But that's asking too much of this too-often pompous fellow. If you're going to opine, best not to sound like a know-nothing. Best, perhaps, to stick to what you know. This applies to everybody, Nobel winners included.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 10, 2011 at 11:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just adding that I wish Leon wrote more about Jewish studies. That would fascinate.

- MOLLYSIMON

June 10, 2011 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ginzy: my understanding is the Golan Druse have stayed on the fence because the fear Assad if the Golan were to be re-taken by Syrian force. Syria's economy runs an annual trade deficit that is now totally dependent on Iran, after Assad turned down the Saudis. drought, food shortages, Kurds denied Syrian citizenship until a month ago - Assad's regime is going to implode at some point. All the US should do is voice condemnation and outsource the problem to Turkey, who is already about to retake Hatay in the nw. And, who knows if Syria's Circassians will stage a coup? In case you have not noticed, the US is already responding militarily in Yemen, a far more volatile 'nation' that actually IS an American interest, if only because of location. Any time the Human Rights hypocrites spend all their energy on Syria is a good day for Israel. Just have to wait until the Turks finish their elections (June 12) - if Erdogan loses (I can dream), who knows what happens next.

- K2K

June 10, 2011 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

MOLLYSIMON "What does that have to do with the fact that Leon writes what he doesn't know?" First you denigrate one of the top American arts and letters editors, now you want him to stick to one subject only. How ridiculous, he knows that children were brutally tortured in Syria and he is reacting against that and other outrages. Do you need a special degree to speak out against that?

- arnon

June 10, 2011 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What, btw, is the background of the op ed writers in the New York Times and other newspapers? LW is head and shoulders above most of them.

- arnon

June 10, 2011 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, besides that it's good to hear from you, as things look now, was the Libyan intervention "ill-considered, ill-defined and ill-starred?" I admit to having paid not a lot of attention to it lately but from the reporting I've just seen it looks like Kadaffy's days are numbered and that NATO takes the position that its mandating resolution empowers it to take him out--seemingly, its present intention. What Wieseltier means by meaningful action qua Syria is for him to say; and I wouldn't waste a nano instant guessing what he means and then arguing with others who guess differently.

- basman

June 10, 2011 at 12:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110504-making-sense-syrian-crisis best background (and map) on Syria's multi-sectarian complexity, the Alawites, and military capability, which really helps understand why no one wants to intervene militarily, except maybe Turkey, and that would only be to "recover" Hatay and keep Syria's Kurds from joining the Greater Kurdistan movement... ah, malahat, why does anyone think Qaddhafi's "days are numbered"? Algeria and most of Africa are supporting him. well, time to stop the invasion of my garden by Jasper, the feline bird-hunter...

- K2K

June 10, 2011 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat. thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm probably spouting cliches and sound bites and I defer to your deeper and wider knowledge on these issues but from where I superficially sit I think the success or failure of the U.S. intervention stands or falls by the Libyan outcome, which we still await. If Kadaffy goes soon, then the intervention, I'd think, will have been a success with America having played a smartly modest role and letting those European natons that have done so take the further lead. There is some Bush doctrine in the intervention getting rid of a terribly bad guy who portends terribly bad things, some prevention mixed in with some preemption. That's ok with me in this instance What the Powell doctrine has to do with this I don't know. I didn't know it had 8 components. I know something about overwhelming force, massive troop involvement as opposed to light footprints, a clear exit strategy, if you break something you own something and maybe some other things. All this seems quite adjacent to Libya where the goal was to protect civilians from allegedly imminent slaughter and to neutralize Kadaffy's use of air power. All done as I understand it. Everybody knew NATO was picking sides and that Kadaffy had to be get got or gotten out of power. That seems to me to be underway for all of NATO's difficulties as most recently spoken to by Gates. But as I said before: the proof of this pudding will be in how it tastes. No one was clear on the Libyan opposition; but the not unreasonable calculation made in this instance was: better the devil you don't know than the devil you do. Why Libya and not others strikes me a non question, respectfully. If you're oversimplifying, I'm sure I need intense remediation. But that's what I understand and how I understand it. I'm happy to be shot down by evidence and better arguments--probably no large burden on anyone who wants to upset my apple cart

- basman

June 10, 2011 at 5:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't know where this is going, but it looks like Assad's family will be out of business soon: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/world/middleeast/11syria.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print "Syrian Forces Storm Into Restive Town Near Turkey" By SEBNEM ARSU and LIAM STACK "GUVECCI, Turkey —Backed by tanks and helicopters, Syrian forces swept into the restive northern town of Jisr al-Shoughour late Friday, pressing an offensive against a town that had offered the stiffest challenge yet to four decades of Assad family rule. Syrian state television reported that troops began arresting members of “armed organizations,” but gave no indication whether there was any fighting taking place. Frightened residents who fled the town earlier in the day, with more than 1,000 crossing into Turkey, said those who remained behind— which they numbered at 5,000 from a population of more than 50,000, — were armed and prepared to fight, raising the prospect of an uneven battle. The Syrian forces stormed into the town after a daylong drive north in which they burned fields and fired on civilians as they closed in, according to local residents reached by phone. Only days earlier, the Syrian government said that 120 soldiers and police officers were killed in the town, which would represent the worst attack on government forces since popular protests against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad began in mid-March. Syrian authorities were especially rattled when, according to reports by townspeople, troops began to defect and local residents took up arms. It was unclear if some of the troops who might have defected remained in the town along with armed residents. The Local Coordinating Committees in Syria, an activist coalition, said that at least 22 people died in clashes across the country on Friday, more than half killed in the northwestern towns around Jisr al-Shoughour. The group reported that the army had begun shelling the towns of Maaret Al-Noman and Jarjanaz, about 25 miles from Jisr al-Shoughour...."

- arnon

June 10, 2011 at 9:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Malahat, only briefly. First, thanks for the exposition of the Powell Doctrine. I read some of von Clausewitz once and then fell asleep and woke up remembering nothing except something being something by other means. But why I still think it’s somewhat adjacent is because I took the issue to be American intervention into Libya, which quickly became subsumed by NATO’s leading the charge, with, as I understand it, America deferring to France and England at the helm. As well, the extent of involvement, drone attacks, some missiles, everything from the air, except for some special ops, in answer to what was assessed as a looming humanitarian catastrophe belie, it seems to me, Powell’s doctrine as a basis for a holus bolus criticism of America’s modest role. If you are directing your criticism to NATO’s role, in contra distinction to America’s, as seemingly sanctioned by a UN resolution, how do we know what analyses both America and the NATO countries did or didn’t do? Initially, why Libya and not elsewhere was because a perceived humanitarian crisis loomed and the goals and the actions taken seemed doable there and the world, as manifest in the UN, came together to act. The umbrella resolution is amenable to the construction that getting rid of Kadaffy is consistent with what the resolution authorizes. So I guess I still fail to see what’s necessarily incoherent, ill considered and ill starred about all that.

- basman

June 10, 2011 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the value of NATO as a military ally: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print "Talking Truth to NATO" "Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke bluntly to America’s NATO allies on Friday. They needed to hear it. America’s key strategic alliance throughout the cold war is in far deeper trouble than most members admit. The Atlantic allies face a host of new and old dangers. Without more and wiser European military spending — on equipment, training, surveillance and reconnaissance — NATO faces, as Mr. Gates rightly warned, “a dim if not dismal future” and even “irrelevance.” The secretary is retiring at the end of this month, which is likely one of the reasons he jettisoned the diplomatic niceties. But not the only one. As he made clear, this country can no longer afford to do a disproportionate share of NATO’s fighting and pay a disproportionate share of its bills while Europe slashes its defense budgets and free-rides on the collective security benefits. NATO’s shockingly wobbly performance over Libya, after the Pentagon handed off leadership, should leave no doubt about the Europeans’ weaknesses. And while America’s NATO partners now have 40,000 troops in Afghanistan (compared with about 99,000 from the United States), many have been hemmed in by restrictive rules of engagement and shortages of critical equipment. Too many are scheduled for imminent departure. The free-rider problem is an old one but has gotten even worse over the last two decades. During most of the cold war, the United States accounted for 50 percent of total NATO military spending; today it accounts for 75 percent. Mr. Gates was right when he warned of America’s dwindling patience with allies “unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.” Decades of underinvestment, poor spending choices and complacent denial about new challenges have created what Mr. Gates called a “two-tiered alliance.” He is right that too many of its members limit themselves to “humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks,” and too few are available for the combat missions the alliance as a whole has agreed to assume. Libya, a mission much more directly linked to the security of Europe than of the United States, strikingly illustrates the consequences. Fewer than half of NATO’s 28 members are taking part in the military mission. Fewer than a third are participating in the all-important airstrikes. British and French aircraft carry the main burden. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, despite limited resources, have made outsized contributions. Turkey, with the alliance’s second-largest military, has remained largely on the sidelines. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has done nothing at all. Even fully participating members have failed to train enough targeting specialists to keep all of their planes flying sorties or to buy enough munitions to sustain a bombing campaign much beyond the present 11 weeks. That should frighten every defense ministry in Europe. What if they had to fight a more formidable enemy than Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s fractured dictatorship? Combat is not always the best or only solution. NATO needs those European development and peacekeeping capabilities. All alliance members must also have at least the basic military capacities to meet common threats. Without that, the alliance will grow increasingly hollow — a fact that enemies will not miss. Mr. Gates was right to speak out. We hope his likely successor, Leon Panetta, will keep pushing hard. A two-tiered military alliance is really no alliance at all."

- arnon

June 11, 2011 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: happy to hear your transplanted hydrangeas are thriving, but I distinctly remember my advice was about peonies, a far more delicate species. my two hydrangeas suffer from complete neglect - have never known when to prune so I do not - yet they thrive. arnon: thanks for the NYT - I do not access anymore. I watched and heard Gates talk this am on C-Span, (the follow-up phone calls offered two conclusions: 1) American education is really bad, and 2) Ron Paul isolationists watch a lot of C-Span and skew the callers) You should read Greg Behrman's "The Most Noble Adventure: the Marshall Plan and the Time when America Helped Save Europe" The creation of NATO was in tandem with the economic - and political unification - plan. In the absence of Soviet armored brigades and nuclear missiles arrayed along the Iron curtain, NATO's mission really does need to be redefined. I read somewhere this week that Russia is actually dipping their oes into joint NATO exercise this year - and I now believe Turkey should be voted out since their primary reason for being added to both the Marshall Plan and NATO was originally part of the Soviet containment. In all fairness, Turkey IS deployed in Afghanistan, and supplying logistic and humanitarian assistance with Libya. Sec Gates main point was about 1) financial, and 2) capabilities. Germany declined to join the Libya effort, but added assets to Afghanistan. Whether Germany spends 2% of their GDP on defense is kind of a GOP talking point - they are always making the case that US defense spending needs to be at least 5% of GDP. One of the problems is that too many NATO members still want full spectrum of air - navy - army - when perhaps there should be more EU defense collaboration so that nations can plug the mostly technolgy specialty holes that the US has to fill. The dilemma is that the US strong-armed NATO into Afghanistan, yet Libya is far more of a national security issue for southern Europe. The diplomatic and political issues are not necessarily aligned with the military asset and cost-sharing that Gates addressed. And, there is also the EU priorities of devoting 1.8% of GDP to foreign aid and development, and general pacifism after centuries of war. Who really threatens the EU? refugees and some terror and piracy. Does NATO need it's current infrastructure for that? Is the US now covering 75% of NATO costs because of Afghanistan? It was a good talk by Gates, and very thought-provoking. Why Libya and not Syria? Libya is about Location - genuine concern about Tunisia and Egypt, floods of refugees crossing the Med, and perhaps wanting resumption of Libya's light sweet crude that is so ideal for refining into "clean diesel". Also, except for most/some of Africa, Qaddhafi has zero friends, especially in the Arab League. Syria can de-stabilize the near East, especially Turkey, Lebanon, and Israel, but is not a direct threat to Europe. And, no matter how the NYT spins it, Syrian protests have been almost entirely peaceful - I assume gun control is firmly enforced by the regime. So far, Jisr al-Shoughour is the only place where there is even a hint of armed protestors/rebels, and almost every other news report has refugees insisting that the 120 dead security forces were mutineers who were killed by the regime loyalists who have no problem killing Syrian Sunnis. In closing, there is no way the Powell Doctrine is compatible with following a specific UN Sec Council resolution, which is what Libya is all about. Took weeks after UNSC1973 and the kinetic action for the idea that the only way to protect Libyan civilians is regime change, and targeted assassinations are still tricky. Since Qaddhafi never bothered to bestow legitimacy on himself even with rigged elections, I think that helps get over the squeamishness.

- K2K

June 11, 2011 at 11:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Different point: I'm looking for a good and balanced analysis of the issue of ill/legaility of the settlements. I've found this one so far, which is compact and quite good: http://www.the-american-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=782 Can anyone recommend another or two?

- basman

June 11, 2011 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

malahat: "And why not elsewhere?" I sense that Bush43's Iraq really forced the global hegemons to need UN SecCouncil authorization for future 'wars' (yeah, try to define war these days). I just started watching the tv series JAG in re-run, and "People vs Sec-Nav" from 2003 actually had the US Secretary of the Navy tried at the ICC over war crimes in Iraq. Marines caught in cross-fire called in airstrike that destroyed a hospital being used by Iraqi army for munitions storage and active fire. The prosecutor's point was to make the presence of US mmilitary illegal, but JAG gave a spririted defense, and the judges were persuaded "not guilty". It was a very good script. Made me realize, (at the time I thought the evidence for Iraq war was non-existent) how no one wants to attack another nation without UN sanction. And, as such, the Powell Doctrine can NOT be used - it was developed for the 1991 Iraq war, which ended when Kuwait was liberated. I happen to agree with PD because the only way you win a real war is when your enemy agrees to unconditional surrender aka WW2 and America's Civil War (ok, only the Confederate Armies surrendered - we are still fighting over State's Rights today - but it took Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant, who realized that only scorched earth destruction was going to end the military action) Then there is the Responsibility to Protect commitment adopted by the UN, and Libya definitely fell into that category. None of the other Arab countries except Syria fall under R2P. Libya is R2P's test case, which I guess is good because there is a whole movement to invoke R2P against Israel if they repeat anything like Cast Lead. "And why not elsewhere?" well, imho, that will be Yemen, not Syria. (Russia is steadfastly blocking any UNSC resolution even with Turkey now pushing for one!)But, the Saudis might just hire enough Pakistanis to occupy Yemen. who knows? Personally, I still think the US should offer Afghanistan to China as long as China is moving into Pakistan. Good use of all those surplus males in China :) No one loudly complains when it is China....

- K2K

June 11, 2011 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...an excellent overview of the issues... I quite agree Malahat.

- basman

June 11, 2011 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Why Syria will get away with it" by Gideon Rachman http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Syria-Palestine-Israel-Nato-Robert-Gates-pd20110614-HT2MJ

- arnon

June 14, 2011 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just btw, where are all the demonstrations across Europe -- or even in the U.S -- protesting Assad's violence against his own people? A big fat 'absent'. Indeed, in contrast, one thing I've noticed is that the Libyan conflict seems to have actually connected up Libyan expats and exiles with what's going on at home, and they are playing a sometimes quite active role. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be the case with Syria.

- ironyroad

June 15, 2011 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't the answer to your question, Ironyroad, though it may be that Libya represent a greater danger to Europe because of the potential refugee problem. I also miss the absence of human rights organization like Amnesty Int. condemnation and public outcry about what is happening in Syria. It's all part of the double standard: "no Jews, no news." Remember the "civil rights demonstrations" at the Syrian Israel border? That was news. Murdering Syrians by the thousands is just part of the way things are in the Mid East. Some Arab spring!

- arnon

June 15, 2011 at 10:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close