Syria vs Libya

The need for intervention in Syria is clear. But that is about everything that can be stated about it. Someone should go in there and do something. But who and what it is impossible to tell. What is possible, is to say who should not do what. But first some things have to be disentangled from one another.

The West needs to keep its hands off of Syria, that much is clear. Luckily, for a change, it is not interested. Before the oil-chanting crowd gets started: for about 90% of people: there is hardly any in Syria. For 90% of the rest, foreign policy is not to be viewed solely through the narrow scope of oil. That would be like say... basing your election strategy on gas prices. The intervention in Lybia was only very marginally about oil. I have heard claims that the US would not intervene in Syria because there is no oil. Geopolitically speaking, Syria has more impact on oil prices than Libya ever could.

The 'realist' benefits to be attained by toppling Assad Syria are far beyond the very limited ones to be reaped in Libya: Destabilizing Hamas (already achieved, completely by accident), Hezbollah and isolation of Iran. Stabilizing Israel, Lebanon and Iraq.
But possible downsides are legion: Civil war in Syria, a possible breeding ground for extremism. The loss of an enormous market for Turkey and Iraq, reducing economic growth in the region enormously. Destabilization of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Turkey.

Then, if Assad is allowed to get away with what he does?
Benefits: Stability in Syria as it was before: at gunpoint (I have heard many Syrians claim they dislike Assad, but are greatful he is around to keep the peace). Stability in Turkey, Iraq and Jordan. Hezbollah and Iran are allowed to maintain their dangerous positions. Israel and Syria will continue to stare each other down.

Assad is a murderer and the plight of the Syrian people is terrible. The possible benefits of intervention are real. Terrible as it is, the means of attaining a stable, democratically elected regime in Syria, may be by far worse then letting Assad 'pacify' the country.

In Libya, there was a leader the many knew to be a madman. A relic from the past. Bashar Al Assad had a different standing in the world and among his people, and many believed him to be progressive still, until he let loose the cannons. Secondly, Libya's tribal society is a problematic backdrop to a peaceful solution, but much less so that in Syria. In Libya, 6 million live stretched out across an enormous surface and in relative isolation of geopolitical fault lines. Libya is a void, and one with enough natural resources to 'buy' itself prosperity, if only properly managed. Syria is a nation of over 20 million, concentrated in a densely populated and stretch on the west. The terrain is much better suited for protracted conflict due to its ruggedness. To add to that, its military is far more numerous, loyal and better equipped than the Libyan army. Not only are there tribal tensions, there are ethnic, religious and sectarian tensions to add to the mix. Powerful neighbors with long-standing feuds make this a dangerous combination.

Syria is a hornet's nest. Intervention could result in a civil war worse than anything that happened in Iraq, with terrible possibilities regarding neighboring countries. Here are two issues that further complicate possible intervention:

- The West cannot be at the forefront of any intervention. Unlike in Libya where France and the UK were 'leading the effort'; after the US pulled out its teeth and claws, Europe was left to kill the defenseless beast. Libya, so close to France and Britain proved to be a logistical nightmare without the help of the US, which had to silently back the frail European capacity. In Syria, much further away, Europe could not clear the job at all. The US would need to deploy the full brunt of its military to subdue it properly. It would be impossible for European or Arabic nations to 'lead the way' with silent US support. No-one would take bait when the hook is so clearly in sight. The US cannot afford another intervention in the Middle East for a long time to come, due to past... errors of judgement, say. They are also unwilling and unable to finance the effort. Europe lacks the capacity to project its power, or the support of its citizens for a protracted conflict. Intervention in Syria seems doomed.

- Any intervention cannot consist of air raids only. The civilian toll would be enormous and Assad's ground army will be nigh-on impossible to contain from the air only. But putting boots on the ground, only complicates my first point.

What options does this leave us with? UN intervention will only happen once Russia changes its mind. Give me a call when that happens. The only alternative is Arabic intervention under Turkish leadership. This option is highly problematic. Not only does Turkey have numerous outstanding scores to settle with Syria (conflict over a Syrian province France once 'gave' to Turkey, water issues, the Kurdish problem,...), the Turkish army is also hardly an example of restraint and peaceful resolve. It would be up to the task, as a very well-equipped, sizable and organized force. But it is haunted by a recent past of violent oppression in Turkish Kurdistan. Any Arabic 'backup' can hardly be seen as any better. There isn't a great deal of Middle Eastern countries that direly need their troops at home to maintain a precarious balance.

Turkish army intervention would allow for the US to 'take care' or air superiority, relatively unseen as the Turkish army would play a leading role. But it would also result in a war the scale of which the Middle East hasn't seen since the Iraq-Iran war and the precarious occupation of a problematic country.

Balancing that out against murderous Assad is almost impossible and whatever choices will be made, history will blame its makers, for lack of a clear view of the alternative option.