Printer Friendly

The U.S. must plan for the day after Assad.

Summary: U.S. policy toward Syria is caught between two conflicting imperatives: President Bashar Assad must go, and the killing must stop.

U.S. policy toward Syria is caught between two conflicting imperatives: President Bashar Assad must go, and the killing must stop. Unfortunately, it's probably impossible to have both. A more realistic formula is that Assad must go, and the killing will continue -- with the United States and its allies trying to limit collateral damage.

Because the U.S. seeks Assad's ouster, the Obama administration should focus more on "the day after" -- including the near-certainty that violence will persist after Assad is gone. It should try to prevent the humanitarian crisis from spreading to other countries, even as it helps plan the reconstruction of Syria.

The advantage of this approach is that it emphasizes what America can do, rather than what it can't. The U.S. can assist Turkey and Jordan with food and relief supplies for the tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Syria; it can bolster the neighbors, especially Lebanon and Iraq, to contain the sectarian fighting. It can help the Syrian opposition frame realistic plans for political transition that reassure the country's minorities they won't be slaughtered.

An advertisement of the limits of U.S. power was the tirade last week by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who called the Russians "pitiful," "dangerous" and "deplorable" after they refused to back a strong U.N. sanctions resolution on Syria. In this fulmination, she was emulating her boss, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has described Russian actions as "despicable" and "intolerable." This diplomacy-by-insult toward a country we are nominally seeking as a partner is counterproductive. Enough, already.

The reality, whether the Russians like it or not, is that the Syrian opposition is stumbling its way toward the gates of Damascus. Major Syrian figures are defecting, and more are said to be on the way. Meanwhile, the U.S. and its allies are divvying up the pieces of an increasingly potent covert action program -- with the Saudis and Qataris providing money and weapons, the U.S. providing communications and logistics (in other words, command and control) and the neighboring Turks, Jordanians, Israelis and Emiratis providing intelligence support on the ground.

Even as the opposition pushes Assad toward the door, officials should worry about what comes next. A jihadist state that provides a new foothold for Al-Qaeda would be a disaster for the region. Preventing this outcome should unite every player -- including Russia, America, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran.

Some Americans still talk about a major U.S.-led military intervention, but this option is receding in the face of reality: Syria has an air defense system tighter than Pakistan's and a chemical weapons arsenal that can be quickly dispersed to scores of locations. Getting military forces into Syria would be hard, but getting them out would be even harder. Fortunately, the opposition doesn't seem to want NATO to fight its war.

As one U.S. official stresses, the intervention proposals don't meet the first requirement of what he describes as "Strategy 101," namely, that in uncertain situations, the potential benefits of intervention should far outweigh the potential costs.

A positive sign is that serious planning for a post-Assad Syria has already begun. With U.S. help, the Syrian opposition in early July endorsed a "national compact" of outreach to Syria's minorities and a transition plan for "restructuring" the Syrian military and government. Meanwhile, the U.S. Institute of Peace has been sponsoring similar discussions, according to Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy.

But these "day after" efforts are just a start: The scary thing about Syria is that in the first weeks after Assad is toppled, violence is actually likely to increase. The U.S. may not have broken Syria, as it did Iraq, but it's going to have to help fix it, anyway.

The best thing that can be said about this administration's foreign policy is that it is patient. Officials seem confident that a process is in place that will eventually lead to Assad's fall. The situation reminds me of last summer in Libya, when critics were demanding escalation to prevent a stalemate. The administration was right to keep its cool then, and now.

David Ignatius is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR.

Copyright 2012, The Daily Star. All rights reserved.

Provided by an company
COPYRIGHT 2012 Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:The Daily Star (Beirut, Lebanon)
Geographic Code:7SYRI
Date:Jul 26, 2012
Previous Article:Teachers give Cabinet 10 days to hike salaries.
Next Article:Kataeb to act after Chartouni interviews.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters