Recently Barbara Walters interviewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regarding the protests in Syria.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/abc-exclusive-defiant-assad-denies-ordering-bloody-crackdown-111944523.html
As you are probably aware the Syrian government is using deadly force against Syrian citizens opposed to the current regime. This has been confirmed by journalists, the UN, and Syrian citizens. This use of force by the Syrian government further legitimizes the grievances of the protesters. Like Gandhi and MLK before them, the Syrian protesters have solicited the oppressive authority they are opposing into showing its true colors, legitimizing the plight of the protesters and winning them significant international support. While sanctions are good, it is clear that immediate action is necessary to prevent further loss of life. After a government has killed 5,000 of its own citizens, the question changes from if it will kill its own citizens, to how many more will it kill.
Once a government has killed thousands of its own citizens, been told to stop or else, and continued to kill, military intervention is necessary. The trick is then what degree of military force must be used to achieve what end game? Are we simply stopping the killing, or supporting the protesters in removing President Assad from power. Will there be boots on the ground? Who needs to do it, the UN, NATO, a coalition? Recent events in Libya offer a few standards which may be of help. NATO, the UAE, and others became involved in the Libyan Civil War after the TNC had established itself as a government in Benghazi and the two sides of the conflict were engaging in traditional battles. Even then it was not until the tide of war was against the TNC who were without an air force that the no-fly zone was established. While the TNC had been meeting with foreign leaders pleading for military assistance, they never wanted foreign boots on the ground; international military involvement would only be accepted in the form of air support. Furthermore UN Security Council Resolution 1973 clearly stated the endgame was to use all means necessary short of occupation to prevent the loss of civilian life.
I believe the TNC showed great wisdom in explicitly saying no the foreign boots on the ground. While NATO air support was crucial for evening the battle and crippling Gadhafi’s military, the war was still won on the ground by Libyans on the front line of the conflict. Much like French military aid and naval intervention in the American Revolutionary War was crucial to the United States’ victory, without stealing glory from the U.S.
The difference in Syria is there is no legitimate government entity opposing President Assad like the TNC opposed Colonel Gadhafi or the founding fathers opposed King George III. This is significant because it means there is no unified body opposing the current regime which could be supported by an intervention. So if military intervention is necessary to prevent further loss of life, but it is not clear who the UN should support, what end game should the UN seek? Killing President Assad could be accomplished with a SEAL team in a night, but that would only throw Syria into further chaos. Rather I propose that a no-fly zone be implemented with the clear and sole mission of eliminating forces actively engaged in killing civilians. Further evolution of foreign engagement in the Syrian conflict would have to remain dependent on events on the ground. If the initial degree of involvement relieved some pressure on the Syrian protesters and they were able to form an opposition government, probably seated in Homs or near the Turkish border, perhaps then a similar UN Resolution 1973 would be implemented, then loosely interpreted to justify removing President al-Assad.
But back to the interview, last week the UN issued a report saying Syrian protesters have been tortured, raped, and beaten. In response to Ms. Walters' question regarding this report President Assad replied, “We did not see these documents from the United Nations… who says the United Nations is a credible organization?” Well President Assad, people and organizations concerned with their perception make a point of avoiding association with non-credible or legitimate organizations. So because Syria is a member of the UN it legitimizes the organization, yet President Assad continues to play this fact of as, "a game you play."
Regarding images of a 13 year old boy who was arrested for writing anti-Assad graffiti and whose body was returned to his family bearing scars and bruises, presumably from being tortured. President Assad, "I met with his father, the father of that child and he said that he wasn't tortured as he appeared in the media." This came right after he questioned the legitimacy of the photos described by Ms. Walters depicting Syrians shot, beaten, and raped by their own military. So President Assad believes we shouldn't believe Barbara Walters' word or the legitimacy of these photos, but when he says something is so, that is how it is.
A final gem from the interview. President Assad, "We don't kill our people… no government in the world kills its people, unless it's led by a crazy person,"
I have two points to make in response to this:
1. If terrorists are shooting/killing/raping the protesters like President Assad claims, wouldn't/shouldn't the government move in and shoot the terrorists? Rather Assad says the government isn't shooting anyone.
2. President Assad defines a country that kills its own people as being led by a crazy person, which I agree with. Assad is the leader of Syria; Syria is killing its own people... so Assad is crazy? I suppose we are what we do, assuming President Assad did order or approve the use of violence and deadly force to put down the protesters (which is crazy), than Assad is in fact crazy.
To sum up, President Assad seems like a leader confronted by Barbara Walters and the reality of the actions he has taken to maintain power in the face of popular opposition. I can only hope that those who are in positions of power and authority around the world realize that every day stronger action is not taken means another five, dozen, or even a hundred Syrians whose death could have been prevented.
I thought your comment about French assistance in the American Revolution very interesting. You say that it was "crucial to the United States’ victory, without stealing glory from the U.S."
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Syria, I first thought: who cares about glory? We're talking about intervention to prevent the loss of innocent life, and possibly supporting a revolution against a dictatorship. The legitimacy of the opposition is what's at stake, not the creation of folk lore to fuel national pride.
The more I thought about it, though, the more I like that you give glory its due. The legitimacy of a government is given by the buy-in of its citizens, and the glory of a shared victory can be incredibly valuable in creating that communal commitment. It will be interesting to see how that affects the course of democratic development over the next decade in places like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and hopefully Syria, as opposed to Iraq and Afghanistan.