Syrian army flags fly over the burned-out, scarred remnants of Aleppo. Huge smoke clouds still slash the sky in blackish swathes from blazing fires so innumerable they are left to fizzle out on their own. The air is heavy with swirling dust, mixed in with jet fuel, maybe even a hint of the chemicals that President Bashir Assad’s military have so gleefully employed on their own people. There are no sobs, no wailing or grief-stricken rending of garments, for the people have run out of tears to cry. An occasional corpse, uncollected by friends, family or the White Hats can be seen, awaiting wild dogs to pick at remains.
Syria is a bonfire for the West’s ideals. All the soaring rhetoric, talk of “red lines” that cannot be crossed, the promises made by well-groomed politicians and oily bureaucrats in their power suits that incidents of mass genocide would never be allowed to happen again, have been neutralized by violent acts so savage that those who perpetrated them can scarcely be called human.
In a way, it no longer matters how we got to this point – how a proud land with a rich history and vibrant culture descended into civil war, and became a devil’s playground for a resurgent Russia, increasingly authoritarian Turkey, and Al-Quaeda in Iraq remnants which eventually reconstituted themselves as ISIS or ISIL. All that matters now is the urgent need to address a humanitarian crisis: people are hungry, sick, cold, wounded and dying, with little or no prospect for food, aid, shelter and a lasting peace. Buried in the rubble with countless broken bodies burns still an ember of hope, not only for this shattered place, but for the Middle East as a whole. It may well be that none of the powers-that-be recognize it, or want to recognize it, yet it could well be the last, best hope for comprehensive peace in the region.
There was a time when no-fly zones, arms embargoes and airstrikes might just have changed the equation: depriving Assad of air cover, interdicting his armoured columns and disrupting his supply lines could have both stalled his counteroffensives, given heart to the rebels, and discouraged the Russians from open intervention. But in one of the most startling acts of his presidency, Barack Obama pulled back at almost the last moment, and threw the decision to authorize use of force over to a muddled Congress, an act which startled even Secretary of State John Kerry, who was ready to make the case with the US’s allies for war.
Obama’s decision was craven on so many levels: while he has consistently decried “stupid” wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was he who’d drawn the “red” line against the Assad regime using chemical weapons, then sought to rewrite history by denying he’d ever even said it. Perhaps he was spooked by ally David Cameron’s failure to get a coherent resolution for use of force past the British parliament, or he thought that just the threat of force might just be enough to get Assad or his generals to cave, but the result was the same. The hesitation bought time for the European nations to entertain inaction, and allowed Russia to put forward a ceasefire plan almost no one believed would work long term, which benefited Assad (allowing him to rally his forces, Putin to supply the battered Syrian army with heavy weapons, and in turn provided a fig leaf for Obama to hide behind even as a shocked Congress deliberated the go-ahead for military intervention.
Wars may be “stupid” but there are such things as “right” wars, fought to stop tyranny, mass murder and butchery. In the thug-like atmosphere of Moscow and Damascus, they understand one thing: power as expressed through a gun barrel. Valdimir Putin is a savage poker player, and he recognized that his American counterpart was too hesitant to call his hand.
Obama argued that he hesitated to give peace a chance as there was neither a clear, definable end-game to American military intervention nor incontrovertible evidence that US security was at stake. Furthermore, intervening militarily in Syria would create an ethical precedent for doing so everywhere else, i.e. the war in Yemen, the Rohinga conflict in Myanmar etc etc.
All the rationalizations fail when the television screens night after night show rows of twisted bodies wailed over by distraught mothers. Statecraft and diplomats might reconcile themselves to cold calculus, but math means nothing to people under fire. The Hakagure, long regarded as the Japanese samurai's manual for code of conduct, writes that one must not draw his sword if he doesn’t intend to use it, lest opponents question his resolve. If Obama never seriously intended to use force, he should not have created the conditions by which that expectation was heightened.
The use of military force might be a reprehensible tool of political statecraft, however there are times in history when even such an unpalatable option must be exercised. Bill Clinton waited and waited in vain for the Europeans to craft a solution to the bloody Bosnian civil war until ethnic cleansing reached a fever pitch, the male population of Srebenica was virtually exterminated and Serbian shells rained down on an open air market staining CNN’s live airwaves with rivers of blood. Clinton acted, unleashing a bombing campaign effective enough to force the Serbs to the bargaining table.
The President of the United States is “clothed in immense power,” to quote Lincoln from Steven Spielberg’s movie of the same name. He (or she) follows rules, enforces them, and yes, occasionally, gets to MAKE them. Facing a situation which seemed intractable, Bill Clinton changed the rules using the powers invested in him by the US constitution, as well as the moral authority granted by the more intangible privilege of being leader of the free world. Bosnia was a one-off, and Syria could have been too. Presidents make exceptions.
What can be done now? Military intervention is no longer possible, nor would it be effective at this stage. That does not mean that the West should restrict itself to sending "observers" or using harsh language:
Tactical Actions
1. Immediate safe zones in Aleppo and outskirts towns should be declared, with aid corridors established, protected by UN ground troops reinforced with coalition air power from NATO if necessary, and funded by the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia. These states in particular, beat the drums against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, egging the US on, and did not share in the $67 billion USD cost per month of the American mission there.
- If Russia objects, then they are welcome to protest, though it would be much better to have them be part of such a coalition. The first priority would be to get the besieged civilians out to camps where they can at least be free from reprisal and murder.
2. The second is to call an international peace conference with all relevant participants. The aim of such a meeting would be to hammer out a mid-term course by determining just how to ensure that the displaced survivors from Aleppo and other areas get eventual repatriation back to their home territories. Rebel forces would have to make concessions, withdraw from territory and perhaps lay down arms. The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, having done as much as anyone to incite the flames of war can also be called upon to provide partial funding for such an effort. Timetables and milestones need to be addressed.
The simple reality is that no solution is possible without Assad at the table – the Russians won’t allow anything else – so better to include him and acknowledge that he indeed has some form of authority over his shattered nation. Does this mean leaving him on power for the short and medium term? Do we have any other choice? Obama can rage all he wants and make fine-sounding statements like Assad can’t legitimize himself through further expense of blood, but the reality is that the Syrian rebels – at least that faction which was in any way favourable to the West – have been defeated and that the victors – Assad and Russia, can now call the shots.
Strategic Actions
1. Attack the root cause of Middle East stability by: a) addressing the Palestinian Question and b) Increase the pace of equitable democratization in Arab countries where oligarchy and plutocracy prevail.
a) The Palestine/Israel issue has been essentially on the back burner for sixteen years. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama have studiously avoided any attempt at fostering dialogue between the two primary parties. This is an unspoken policy of neglect which has provided hawks on all sides with an incentive to maintain the status quo. Moreover, the continued impasse has allowed groups like ISIS, Al-Quaeda, Al-Shabbab and many other similar organizations to decry what they see as the inequity of Israeli occupation and the culpability of the US and her allies in perpetuating this perceived 'outrage.' In turn the US and her allies claim foot-dragging from the Israelis as well as factionalism within the Palestinians (i.e. the Fatah movement runs things in the West Bank whilst Hamas - labelled a terrorist organization by Israel and many western powers, govern Gaza).
- Jump start the stalled Peace Process by sponsoring talks where democratically elected representatives are at the table. This would mean formal conversations between the government of Israel and whomever the Palestinian people choose to be their voice. Now this would likely mean that Fatah would have to go up against Hamas in a general referendum encompassing both the West Bank and Gaza however a free an open debate might lead both sides actually realizing that they have a common strategic goal (a Palestinian state) rather than tactical differences. To have credibility such a contest would need have UN (and regional Gulf States) observers and Hamas would have to publicly acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a sovereign nation, but it could be done.
- Assuming both Israelis and Palestinians could get to the table, the small step of formalized discussions could begin. Thorny issues like a two-state solution, the future of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, Iran's (and other non-regional players') clandestine interventions in the area, all should be reviewed. There will be contention, raised voices, possible walkouts, even violence from those whose best interests would be the maintenance of the status quo, with no guaranteed results save long, hard talks. Yet it would be a start. And through it all, every side must resolve to keep talking. To walk away would dishonour all those who have, inadvertently or not, given their lives for peace.
b) The Arab Spring was an incomplete revolution in that, while Gaddaffi and Mubarak were toppled, much of the resultant legacy has been ambivalent. What makes this issue particularly difficult is that many of the West's regional allies, while outwardly supportive of keeping renegade regimes at bay, are hardly paragons of democratic virtue themselves. The gap between uber rich and poor is awesome and the continued perpetuation of this, added to a pervasive, repressive attitude to dissent, is fertile breeding ground for the global contagion of terrorism: young or impressionable minds are all too ready to believe that a nefarious global conspiracy between their rulers and Western backers strive to keep the people in a semi-permanent state of suppression and denial of opportunity.
- the Deputy Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has foreseen this danger. Already, Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud has initiated a series of modest reforms geared towards moving the Saudi' economy towards a more diversified and privatized structure. His reform blueprint, “Vision 2030,” details goals and measures in various fields, from developing non-oil revenues and privatization of the economy to e-government and sustainable development. Whether or not he will eventually introduce more measures to stimulate entrepreneurship and income equity, perhaps as a precursor to allowing greater tolerance to dissent remains to be seen.
Nonetheless, the region's monarchies glacial-paced due consideration for policies allowing people enough economic and political latitude to induce hope is a far more effective way of combating radicalism than to throw people into already-swelling prisons where they will only add to the burden of the state to feed and house them.
In the final analysis none of these strategic proposals are going to be completed within a finite timeline. Yet they lie at the heart of the forces that drive radicalism, which thrives on fear, despair, and the perception of unfair suppression. The world will not, sadly, learn its lesson and the tragedy of Syria will keep perpetuating itself in one form or another until nations take the hard tactical and strategic actions - in concert - to ensure that truly, horrors of this kind are never again inflicted on humanity.
As John Lennon once sang, "War is Over! (If You Want It)"