A group of us Mennonites was talking about Syria yesterday,
and all agreed that US bombing was a bad thing. This led to the question: if
not that, then what should be done? Doing nothing avoids making matters worse,
but also runs the risk of letting the situation get worse. All of us have
served in relief and development roles, and ought to have some ideas, it would
seem.
Everyone quickly suggested helping the many refugees created
by the situation in Syria, something that Mennonite Central Committee is
already doing. There is a lot more to be done, and helping in this way is
something all of us could happily advocate.
But what should be done about the situation that is creating
the refugees? That question did not get such a ready response. If the concern
is to stop creating refugees and allow those in camps to return home, the goal
should be political and economic stability in Syria. The US has a history of
helping to create stability by propping up dictators, and, by definition,
stability is achieved when one group has the ability to exert political influence
and control over all other groups. The logical way to help is to pick a side
and assist them in stabilizing the country under their rule. This course of
action doesn't sound very good these days, particularly in light of recent US
efforts along that line in Iraq and Afghanistan. That course didn't serve the
US well in Iran either, and there are many other examples.
Where various factions are killing each other, the help they
want is military. Diplomacy is nice, but when the shooting is ongoing on you
mostly want ammunition and heavier weapons. Fighters keep dying while diplomats
talk. In a multi-faction civil war with outsiders involved, diplomacy doesn't
stand much of a chance until either one of the factions shows clear signs of
winning, or everyone is exhausted.
Neither of those scenarios applies in Syria just now.
A limited attack to degrade the government forces sounds
simple enough, but who benefits and who is deterred? The government is fighting
for its life, and if it gives up there is no sanctuary to which its leaders can
safely retreat. Deterrence doesn't work in that situation, so the only useful
outcome is strengthening opposition forces by degrading government forces.
The opposition is fragmented in its allegiances and goals.
Islamists of the Shia faction appear to be mostly concerned with achieving
hegemony in a portion of the former Syria, something they are already
accomplishing in the north. Alawites need to keep the present government in
power. Sunnis would like to replace the current government with their own
people. And on it goes. All that unites the opposition is opposition to the
regime. Its fall would signal the start of the new civil war among the
surviving factions.
Back in 1941 a world power was having its interests
interfered with by another world power. It chose to use a limited air strike on
purely military targets to degrade the opposition’s ability to meddle in its
affairs. We all know how well that worked out for Japan, at least in the short term.
History does keep repeating itself if we don’t pay attention. In the meantime,
I will focus my advocacy on the refugees from the Syria battleground.
