Winning over pro-war people, one person at a time...
Vanity post, admittedly: I am proud of myself for winning over someone who previously was in favor of military intervention against Syria through a quick online chat. Here's how it went:
Him: This potential conflict makes such strange bedfellows. I've always been a bit more hawkish than most progressives, so immediate my inclination is to support a tactical strike.
Me: I would urge those considering supporting what being billed as a "narrow, limited" action to take some time to study the situation of Syria. The opposition is worse that than the government: in rebel-held areas, sharia courts mete out ruthless punishments, there is a constant stream of people fleeing to government-held areas because they are safer rebels and bandits there. Al Qaeda is the single most important part of the opposition. Further, this would quickly become a regime change operation, and there would be US deaths. How many lives would that be worth? The Syrian government has a solid base of support among religious minorities including Christians... they won't just surrender to the al Qaeda-led insurgents.
Him: Do you think proportional response is an outdated foreign policy tactic? They blow up a building, we take out a radar station? They gas 1,000+ civilians, we blow up their refueling depot?
Me: I think it's woefully inappropriate in this case. Syria isn't in a vacuum. Striking these sites is effectively the same as degrading the Syrian army's command and control. Doing that makes it more and not less likely that chemical weapons will be used, or will be acquired by terrorists. The US knows that the only way to actually SECURE all such weapons would be to invade the country and have an occupation force of upwards of 100,000 troops. These tactical strikes make no sense at all. The proposed Geneva peace conference is the only potential solution. The government has agreed to attend unconditionally, while the insurgents have said that they will not. The US has to pressure the insurgents to sit for talks.
Him: The 1925 Geneva Protocol was entered into force as a "prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare." We've affirmed our dedication to the halting of the use of chemical weapons again in 1972, 1977 and 1993 (which Syria did NOT). Whether popular or not, our country DOES have a red line: this is it and it's been crossed. I don't think anyone is willing to argue that (although some might challenge the Geneva Protocol line because this is a civil war and not between two separate states). If we don't do something, those chemical weapons WILL be used again or possibly traded to hostile forces looking to hurt other nations.
I still hold hope for a diplomatic solution, but I am inclined to support a missile/aerial strike if diplomacy won't work. I just don't see any evidence that limited tactical strikes will lead to boots on the ground. I know the President well enough to know he won't make such a bad political miscalculation.
Me: The "red line" was Obama's, not some long-standing policy of the United States. Further, he never even indicated what was supposed to happen were it "crossed." I argue that if we DO do something, chemical weapons are more likely to be used. Just what does one think will be hit in missile strikes anyway? Not chemical weapons storage facilities - they've ruled that out for obvious reasons. All it could do is degrade Syria's ability to control those weapons, making it easier for al Qaeda to get their hands on them. This would be a case of the dogmatic application of internationalist ideology where it simply will not work or produce any good result. I think that a sober analysis of the situation cannot avoid that finding.
Him: Perhaps you're right on that issue: we have no clear guide as to whether or not Assad would use MORE chemical weaponry if provoked. It's nice to know some folks are actually paying attention! You've got some good points.
Me: Yeah, I've spent a lot of time - too much - studying the situation since the beginning of the crisis in 2011. I do have some strong views on the subject, but I don't think that I allow my views to cloud my view of the facts.
Him: Just knowing how disjointed the rebellion (even with a small al Qaeda presence it makes me gulp) is pictured gives me pause: I want to look at the end game with this situation, and the problems involved after the Assad regime ends violently are pretty obvious.
I know we have to do what is necessary to stop the use and proliferation of chemical weapons. That's a given. But HOW we do that is going to be the puzzling part. Does the UN intervene and confiscate? Do we wait for another attack on another thousand civilians before we act? That's the part that has me worried.
Me: The numbers quoted in Western media are not accurate (adherence of insurgents to various groups). Nusra and ISIS (both Qaeda affiliates) control Raqqa the largest city held by the insurgents, and sit on the Aleppo military council of the insurgents. They occupy many villages and towns. The idea that there is a single "FSA" is wrong - there are many small bands each ruling itself, governed by radical or somewhat less radical varieties of Islamist (theocratic) ideology. I think that the realists in DC know this, and that's why they DON'T want the Syrian state to be dissolved or overthrown. They hope in vain for a coup.
I will go further, and say that the government has simply been less brutal than the opposition. I have idea of the Russian/Syrian assertion that rebels used chemical weapons in Khan al Assal is correct: either way, the insurgents have engaged in outright sectarian cleaning. The town of Qusayr had a 30% Christian population before the conflict broke out. Once the insurgents took control, they forced all (and I mean ALL) of the Christians to leave. The army took control a couple months ago, and the Christians come back to their ruined homes and shops. On the other hand, probably the most pro-government city in Syria is Tartous by the coast. It has welcomed hundreds of thousands of refugees from all over the country, regardless of sect/religion (please do read this short article: http://www.tallmadgeexpress.com/ap%20international/2013/08/30/alawite-stronghold-in-syria-a-haven-amid-war) I think the contrast is telling. There have been atrocities on both sides. Counterinsurgency is a dirty game for sure. But if I had to say which side in this civil war truly is closer to "our" values, meaning secularism, democracy, enlightenment principles - I'd have to say the pro-government side. The Shah of Iran was also brutal, but was closer to "our" values than the ayatollahs that came after the revolution there.
Now, I understand that your concern is how to ensure that there isn't some global destabilization as a result of the use of banned weapons. How can "something" be done so as to minimize the prospect that other actors might get some crazy ideas... I will argue that finding a peaceful solution to the civil war should trump that concern. In South Africa, in Nicaragua, in many places, people who committed terrible crimes were given amnesty. Why? Because doing so facilitated a political solution and minimized bloodshed going forward. That should be our concern in this case, where there is not, to be honest, a US national security threat by the Syrian government.
Him: You have me convinced...
= new reply since forum marked as read
