The US, Turkey and a”Buffer Zone” in Syria

In March, President Obama supposedly forgot that the microphone in front of him was still on and told Russian Prime Minister Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Although Obama was referring to a missile defense system against Iran, his “let me go until November” statement indicated the “standstill” that will be experienced in American policy during 2012. This standstill has become apparent, at least, as far as Syria is concerned.

Everyone now feels free to take advantage of this “weakness” in the Obama Administration by doing whatever they like. Leading the way are the tyrants of the Mideast. Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia and Iran, tops the list.

In the wake of the Houla massacre, however, there has been a steady stream of criticism from various news outlets that Obama won’t be able to ignore. The Washington Post went full-steam-ahead with yesterday’s headline “What the U.S. should do about Syria.” The criticism and suggestions contained in an article titled “Horror in Houla,” in the influential magazine The Economist, intersected with those of The Washington Post.

The conclusion that might be reached greatly concerns Turkey. As time passes, the creation of a buffer zone in Syrian territory vis-a-vis Turkey is an option that all parties who wish to see an end to the violence want to consider.

Rice’s Scenarios

The Washington Post has a reputation of being a table-side seat at the president’s breakfast. In yesterday’s featured article, the US representative to the United Nations, Susan Rice (who will probably be made Secretary of State if Obama is re-elected) offered three scenarios for the outcome in the wake of the Houla massacre.

In the first scenario, Kofi Annan’s efforts would be successful. She added, however, that this is the least likely possibility.

In the second possibility, Russia could apply pressure to the Syrian regime. But Rice states that there is no sign of such a situation.

In the third scenario, “The violence escalates, the conflict spreads and intensifies, it reaches a higher degree of severity, it involves countries in the region, it takes on increasingly sectarian forms and we have a major crisis not only in Syria but the region.”

In this case, the U.S. would be forced to make a move.

The Washington Post diverged, with Rice offering some suggestions that would “bring about the demise of the Assad regime, to prevent sectarian conflict and to stop a regional war.”

According to the article, “The first of these would be to recruit a coalition to create safe zones along and eventually inside Syria’s borders with Turkey and perhaps Jordan, close US allies that already harbor tens of thousands of Syrian refugees. These areas could be defended by air power or by a modest force of Turkish troops; the Turkish government has expressed support for safe zones. With only a handful of loyal military units, the Assad regime would be hard-pressed to challenge the zones while maintaining control over the rest of the country. They could become an area where opposition forces could organize and train, with the help and influence of Western governments. Some experts believe that their very creation could cause the regime to crumble; at a minimum, many civilian lives could be saved.”

The article concluded with a warning that, “Pursuing these options would require President Obama to abandon his passivity, to spend political and diplomatic capital, and to set aside his campaign boast that ‘the tide of war is receding’ in the Middle East. But if he does not do so, that tide will swell — and the cost of stemming it will steadily grow.”

The Fourth Option

It could very well be that the tide will come to swallow up Obama and cost him the election.

Interestingly, after emphasizing the impossibility of Rice’s first three scenarios, The Economist article goes on to suggest a fourth option.

According to the magazine, “The fourth option is to impose buffer zones and humanitarian corridors on Syria’s borders, starting with the Turkish one. This would both provide sanctuary to Syrian civilians fleeing attacks from Mr. Assad’s forces and give the Free Syrian Army a place to retreat to in order to regroup.”

The fact that the most influential media outlets in the West have begun to promote such a discussion is reason enough to think that Washington will soon be knocking on Ankara’s door. The Syrian opposition has been asking for this buffer zone since its first days (The Syrian National Parliament was formed in Istanbul, in November). When I was in Beirut in December, nearly everyone I spoke with said that this was what they expected from Turkey.

Though some may argue otherwise, there is a sense that Turkey has been dragging its feet on this issue. As Assad would not hesitate to divide his country along sectarian lines, Turkey doesn’t want to help that division along and see its effort pull it into the “Syrian division trap.”

Otherwise, the issue is not about provoking a war with Syria. Even if that were the case, it is doubtful that Syria possesses an army to fight with.

Reports from observers within Syria indicate that large swaths of the countryside, as well as provincial city centers, are neither under the control of Assad’s forces nor that of the Free Syrian Army. The regime’s forces are entering zones controlled by rebels in order to enforce punishments, but they leave without remaining very long. These reports state that, apart from remote-controlled bombs planted along the roadways running from Jabil Zawya (at the tip of Turkey’s Hatay province) to Dair al-Zor to the East and from Dara to the South, the regime’s forces are unable to make any moves forward. Those who support the buffer zone idea say that it would provide a chance for thousands of Sunni soldiers prepared to desert Assad’s army to escape, which could lead to the collapse of the regime. A few months ago, Turkey had doubts that creating a buffer zone would be a good idea, but it may now be ready to reconsider.

That is to say, Syria is becoming the kind of problem that goes beyond just slamming the regime with “vehement sermons” and trying to keep the situation under control. It is forcing Turkey’s ruling party to quickly decide what its next move will be … because Obama might not be the only one pulled under by that tide.