1. Home
2. Opinion

US faces a moral dilemma in Syria

By Aijaz Zaka Syed. Dated: 4/14/2017 10:59:55 PM

April 6, 2017 marked the 100th anniversary of America's reluctant plunge into the World War I. Fearful of foreign entanglement, the US stood watching for three years while on the other side of the Atlantic the young men of Europe slaughtered each other. Finally, Congress gave the go-ahead and President Woodrow Wilson declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917.
One is not sure if President Donald Trump had been conscious of the historic backdrop of his decision when he ordered the US missile attack on Syria last week, on April 6, effectively ending the policy of 'non-interference' under President Barack Obama.
I have never been a big fan of Western interventions. But God knows if there ever really existed a legitimate case for international intervention to save precious human lives, it is Syria.
Home to one of the oldest civilizations, Syria has been relentlessly burning over the past seven years with half a million lives lost and around 11 million people -- more than half of the population -- being forced to live as refugees in neighboring countries.
On the other hand, Obama's hands-off approach in Syria and Iraq gave birth to the monster called Daesh or the self-styled ISIS. Of course, in deciding to withdraw the US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and not getting involved in yet another Middle East war, Obama's intentions had been noble.
But then the road to hell is paved with many such noble intentions. By abruptly withdrawing from the region, the US left behind a dangerous power vacuum, allowing Shia militias and ISIS terrorists to effortlessly step in. Again, the US reluctance to get involved in Syria was interpreted by Assad as a license to kill, barrel bomb and gas his own people.
This is why even though Trump's rancorous rhetoric and absurd Muslim spawn strong emotions in the Islamic world, his decision to bomb Syria in response to the horrendous gas attack last week has been greeted with an audible sigh of relief. Trump's outrage over the killing of nearly 100 people in Idlib, many of them young children, appeared far from pretentious.
The Idlib attack, as the President put it, crossed many 'red lines'. But then over the past seven years, the killer regime in Damascus has crossed many such red lines and all that the international community has done is to sit around, rubbing its hands in helpless despair.
If only the world had acted in time, half a million lives might have been saved in Syria. Thousands of Syrians, including the 2-year old Aylan Kurdi and his family, would not have perished on high seas or on the long, torturous routes across Europe, as they escape the tyranny and carnage at home. Still, better late than never.
The US strike on Syria has understandably revived the spirits of America's Arab allies who have been most upset with Washington for neglecting their strategic ties and warming up to Iran under Obama. The nuclear deal with Tehran is seen by the Arabs as the greatest betrayal.
With this one decisive strike though, Trump has gone from zero to hero in the eyes of America's Middle East allies and even that of his domestic base. Arab media, especially Arabs and Syrians on social media, cannot stop cheering 'Abu Ivanka Al Amreeki'.
In the words of Middle East watcher Linda Heard, Trump has made a deafening shout-out that America's capacity to project power is back up to speed. Simultaneously, he has muted allegations that his campaign officials were in bed with Moscow.
The US involvement may not produce any dramatic, instantaneous results on the ground but it will certainly make the regime think twice before targeting helpless, unsuspecting civilians.
Secondly, it sends out a loud and clear message to Russia, Iran and Hezbollah that there will be a price to pay for blindly supporting the tyrant. The US has also clearly signaled that Assad cannot be a part of any solution to the Syrian conflict.
The US missile strike on the Shayarat airbase has also catapulted Washington into a dangerous confrontation with its Cold war rival Russia. Moscow boasts a key military base in Syria and has advisers on the ground aiding and advising the Baathist regime.
Indeed, under Obama, the US and Russia had been closely cooperating in Syria, ostensibly to wipe out Daesh but actually targeting the main opposition forces or the so-called moderate rebels supported by Turkey and Arab states.
Apparently, the US had alerted Russian forces ahead of the missile strikes on the Shayarat air base and carefully avoided hitting Moscow's Special Forces and helicopters, stationed as part of the Kremlin's effort to help Assad fight the rebels. Also, it is inconceivable that the Russians who have propped up the regime all these years would have been ignorant of the chemical attack.
In any case, how can anyone believe that a regime that has a long history of indiscriminately using the deadly barrel bombs all across the country, targeting crowded markets, hospitals and schools would hesitate to use the most lethal and dangerous chemical weapons against its people? Especially when it has repeatedly done so in the past, the last one being in 2013 in Ghouta, conjuring similar heart-rending scenes of young babies dying in their dozens.
Yet the Russians remain characteristically blasé, defending the indefensible and accusing the US of damaging the relationship.
Also gone is the cloud of suspicion that had been hanging over Trump's relationship with Russian President Putin amid serious allegations of Moscow's involvement in hacking the US presidential elections.
Interestingly, only days ago, in the thick of the storm over the Trump campaign's Russian ties with the FBI launching an extraordinary probe, the great dissident philosopher Noam Chomsky had warned that the President might start a war, a la George W Bush, to deflect the attention from the domestic front.
Even if there is a semblance of truth in the accusation, let us hope that the US involvement will finally help spur this conflict towards a final resolution, not perpetuate it further.
Now that the two superpowers and their allies are stuck up to their necks in the Syrian quagmire, the international community must push for an early resolution of the conflict. If it is not done soon, it could degenerate into an endless, all-consuming regional war of epic proportions. Already there are too many warring sides in this most frustrating of conflicts, easily the most complex since the World War II.
There must be a clear strategy and long-term plan to put an end to this conflict and build a new Syria under the leadership of the UN. One off US strike, however impressive and deadly in its impact, cannot end Syria's misery.
Having presided over this unmitigated disaster all these years, Assad has to go, paving the way for a national consensus government, perhaps supported and monitored by the UN and world powers. Syria has witnessed too much bloodshed and death and destruction.
It deserves better. It deserves a fair chance at peace. All sides which have exhausted themselves in this endless, directionless war must demonstrate greater understanding and forbearance for the sake of peace. America once again faces a moral choice in the Middle East. It must do what is right, beyond the transient considerations of popularity ratings and the interests of its all-powerful military-industrial complex.
Aijaz Zaka Syed is an award winning journalist. Email: Aijaz.syed@hotmail.com