Nothing To Gain but a Great Deal To Lose

President Obama is reluctant to intervene in Syria, but without intervention the situation will probably become a lot worse. In the end the “peace president” could allow a major catastrophe to happen.

In the middle of the ‘90s the world was shocked at itself. First it allowed genocide to happen in Rwanda, then in Bosnia. No one wanted to intervene in either conflict until it was too late; both conflicts are a reminder of what it costs when we do not help where we should help. A few years later the U.S. invaded Iraq: The invasion was poorly prepared and even more poorly justified. It was a war with heavy losses which came to act as a deterrent — a warning against meddling where we should not meddle.

In the third year of the Syrian civil war, the West is adhering to the lesson of Iraq. President Obama especially would like to stay out of it, at nearly any cost. After its failure in the ‘90s, the United Nations invented the principle of the “responsibility to protect,” which obligates the world to help civilians when their government will not or cannot. But Obama is reinterpreting the principle, as he feels responsible for protecting America against a new adventure. He sees it as strong leadership that he is resisting the Syrian maelstrom.

We Have To Intervene in Some Conflicts

When the Balkans were in flames, his predecessor, Bill Clinton, thought the same way. Then as now, the U.S. had an Iraq war not long behind it and wanted to dedicate itself to its economy first. But after the massacre in Srebrenica, Bosnia, the U.S. could no longer keep out. It attacked the Bosnian Serbs and quickly negotiated a peace agreement. The current situation in Syria is much more complex than the one in Bosnia, but one lesson from the Balkan years is still relevant: In some conflicts we have to intervene sooner or later anyway because the atrocities can no longer be tolerated, even from a distance.

In contrast, Obama has always hoped that the Syrian situation would sort itself out. He can easily justify his stance. His country is exhausted and his voters would like a president who ends wars instead of starting new ones. Moreover, Obama is not a foreign policy idealist, but a realist. From his point of view, the U.S. has nothing to gain in Syria but a great deal to lose. As much as the example of Iraq may be a deterrent, the conflict of 2003 cannot be compared with the situation in Syria today.

In Iraq, there was peace, albeit under a dictatorship, when the Americans invaded and unleashed the violence. In Syria, around 80,000 people have died and countless numbers have fled. Unlike in Iraq, the U.S. would not cause a civil war; they would try to contain one. Unlike in 2003, the Americans would not have to put together a “coalition of the willing” — in 2013 the Europeans would be only too glad if the Americans finally intervened.

A No-Fly Zone Would Be Feasible

Obama is right to look very carefully at this complex conflict. Unfortunately, the prognosis that everything will get much worse without intervention is a realistic one. If the U.S. had put in place a no-fly zone, it might not have come to a war on the current scale. Instead, there is increasing evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and the flow of refugees could soon destabilize the whole region. In the end it could be that Obama, the “peace president,” allows a major catastrophe to happen. He should therefore consult with France and Britain about the course of action which is the most feasible and which could at least shorten the war: a no-fly zone, which would deny the regime sovereignty over its airspace. This would help the rebels and probably protect civilians.

Humanitarian interventions have an unjust reputation for only making things worse. After initial setbacks in, for instance, Somalia, they have saved numerous human lives in Bosnia, East Timor and recently in Ivory Coast and Libya.

From Russia and China’s perspective, however, humanitarian interventions are merely a Western instrument for overthrowing dictators. This is sometimes correct, as in the case of Libya, for example. On the other hand, authoritarian states like Russia have never even tried to curb violence in other countries. In the U.N. Security Council it will not agree to intervene in Syria for this reason. Should the U.S. try to do so anyway, it would have to do it without a U.N. mandate as it did in Kosovo in 1999. Armed enforcement of a no-fly zone would possibly even be illegal under international law. The alternative is unfortunately to stand idly by over the years and passively watch unprecedented carnage in the heart of the Middle East.