Intervention in Syria: Too Big a Gamble
Published in die Welt
(Germany) on 17 May 2013
by Jacques Schuster (link to original)
There are crises and wars that can neither be solved nor ended. Whoever gets involved in them — to prevent a humanitarian tragedy, for example — acts simultaneously bravely and foolishly; intending to destroy Sodom, they may end up by turning it into a gigantic Gomorrah. That's what happened with World War I: An assassination in Serbia morphed into what historian Golo Mann termed the seminal catastrophe of the 20th century.
One hundred years later, the Syrian civil war harbors similar dangers. A government murders some of its own citizens, while at the same time, Syrian opposition groups massacre known or suspected members of the government. In addition, al-Qaida rampages between Aleppo and al-Suwayda using force surpassed only by Hezbollah.
What Western power wants to willingly get involved in that? Which side would it run to help? Which Syrian faction is most closely allied with the American/European camp? Is it certain that faction represents a majority of the Syrian people? If it does, has it been established that it is capable of restoring order in a country that guarantees human rights for all?
One always hears that human suffering needs to be prevented and that's true. But what are the ramifications of such an intervention? At least one major and one lesser world power have an interest in keeping the Syrian president in power. The lesser power, Iran, would do everything in its power to use its intelligence services and henchmen to ensure that any military action by the United States escalated into an inferno in which suicide bombings would be as common as sandstorms in the Syrian desert.
Russian Interests
Superpower Russia is already busily engaged in outfitting the Syrian dictator with state-of-the-art antiaircraft missile systems to ensure maximum damage would be inflicted on NATO's ships and aircraft. Now it has even dispatched warships to the Mediterranean to demonstrate to the world how important it considers Damascus and how much Russia would hate to lose its last remaining ally in the Middle East.
In the event of an intervention, Russia would certainly not risk engaging against NATO forces. But it wouldn't be the first time in modern history that a major war erupted without the actual participation of the major powers behind it. Is the West prepared — are the Germans prepared — to take that gamble?
Do we want to deploy troops to Syria despite the near certainty that many of them would never return? There are scenarios where all the options are bad. The lesser evil here would be the eventual end of the civil war because both sides were too exhausted to keep fighting it.
One hundred years later, the Syrian civil war harbors similar dangers. A government murders some of its own citizens, while at the same time, Syrian opposition groups massacre known or suspected members of the government. In addition, al-Qaida rampages between Aleppo and al-Suwayda using force surpassed only by Hezbollah.
What Western power wants to willingly get involved in that? Which side would it run to help? Which Syrian faction is most closely allied with the American/European camp? Is it certain that faction represents a majority of the Syrian people? If it does, has it been established that it is capable of restoring order in a country that guarantees human rights for all?
One always hears that human suffering needs to be prevented and that's true. But what are the ramifications of such an intervention? At least one major and one lesser world power have an interest in keeping the Syrian president in power. The lesser power, Iran, would do everything in its power to use its intelligence services and henchmen to ensure that any military action by the United States escalated into an inferno in which suicide bombings would be as common as sandstorms in the Syrian desert.
Russian Interests
Superpower Russia is already busily engaged in outfitting the Syrian dictator with state-of-the-art antiaircraft missile systems to ensure maximum damage would be inflicted on NATO's ships and aircraft. Now it has even dispatched warships to the Mediterranean to demonstrate to the world how important it considers Damascus and how much Russia would hate to lose its last remaining ally in the Middle East.
In the event of an intervention, Russia would certainly not risk engaging against NATO forces. But it wouldn't be the first time in modern history that a major war erupted without the actual participation of the major powers behind it. Is the West prepared — are the Germans prepared — to take that gamble?
Do we want to deploy troops to Syria despite the near certainty that many of them would never return? There are scenarios where all the options are bad. The lesser evil here would be the eventual end of the civil war because both sides were too exhausted to keep fighting it.
Previous article![]( "Los Angeles’s Mayoral Election: Who?")
