Intervention in Syria: Is the Removal of Assad in the Interest of the United States?

On March 15th of this year, the Syrian civil war entered its fourth year of violent conflict. The unrest began in March of 2011 when popular protests broke out across the country, triggering violent retaliation by the Syrian Army. The conflict in Syria represents the culmination of decades of escalating tensions between ethnic, religious, and political groups in the country, particularly between Sunni Arabs and the Assad-backed Alawite minorities. Today, I’d like to discuss several reasons why removing the Assad regime from power could have both positive and negative repercussions for the United States. On the one hand, Assad’s regime promotes stability in the region and is more religiously moderate than the fundamentalists involved in the opposition. Without international support, U.S. intervention would be widely condemned. On the other hand, Assad’s presence in the Middle East undermines American influence in the region. His removal could prevent the Syrian conflict from spreading to neighboring states and might end the ongoing human-rights disaster in the region. Given the serious risks involved, the United States must carefully consider the potential costs and benefits of intervention in Syria. I’ll begin by discussing reasons why Assad’s removal would be problematic for the United States and then look at several reasons why his removal could be beneficial.

Promotes Stability in the Region

The first issue I’d like to point out is that the removal of the Assad regime could further destabilize Syria and other countries in the Middle East. If the Assad regime were removed, opposition forces with ties to Al Qaeda would have the potential to “inaugurate another wave of terrorism.” Because opposition forces are so divided, they would likely be unable to establish a stable, unified government in Assad’s absence. So far, the opposition forces have failed to form a unified coalition that could feasibly replace Assad’s regime. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) lacks unified command and control, and many members have little military experience. Compared to the Syrian Army, the FSA has very little capacity for coordinated planning, training, or communication. Deep ideological divisions create friction between FSA commanders and leaders of local opposition militias. Members of the FSA have been unable to agree on matters of logistics and doctrine and lack the military resources necessary to defend a stable government. Under these conditions, the FSA does not provide a meaningful alternative to the existing Syrian military. Assad’s removal could have unintended consequences and could further destabilize the region.

Though the Syrian army has lost its legitimacy in many regions of the country, it is still effective in Damascus and Aleppo, Syria’s main population centers. Compared to the FSA, the Syrian army has a well-developed logistical network and high degree of unit cohesion. An effective military that is regarded as legitimate is essential for political stability, and Assad’s army has greater efficacy and legitimacy than those of rival factions. Removing Assad from power would leave the rival factions of the opposition to vie for power, none of whom have the resources or ideological unification necessary to run a country.

The Assad regime could respond to attempts at removal by pursuing strategies that risk exacerbating regional conflicts. In order to secure the future of the Alawite community, the Assad regime could turn to regional proxies or to its BCW-capable ballistic missile holdings, either of which would have catastrophic consequences. The removal of Assad from power would escalate Sunni-Alawite tensions in Syria, increasing instability and potentially catalyzing sectarian violence. Under these conditions, Syria would become increasingly divided. Attempts to remove Assad could also trigger escalations from Iran and Hezbollah, who might attempt to deflect attention from Syria by escalating tensions with Israel. If successful, the government established by opposition forces would be antagonistic towards Israel, which is a key U.S. ally. To prevent against further instability, the United States would have to support the creation of a stable government to take the Assad regime’s place. This would be unpopular, enormously costly, and time-consuming.

More Religiously Moderate

My second concern is that the Assad regime is more moderate than the fundamentalist revolutionaries that would likely rise to power if the Assad regime were removed. Many members of the opposition forces are religious extremists with ties to Al Qaeda. If successful, these groups would form a government that would be hostile to the United States. Opposition groups within the FSA include Islamist militias affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War estimates that Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham have a combined total of at least 5,000 fighters in Syria, and claims that these groups are some of the most committed armies in the country. Other opposition groups have ties to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, and, if successful, would want little to do with pluralism or democracy. A fundamentalist Islamist government in Syria would likely be uncooperative with the United States and may contribute to the development and proliferation of terrorist groups.

Intervention Internationally Condemned

My third concern is that acting without international approval would be illegal and would be widely condemned by other nations. Russia, China, and other “BRIC” countries prevent U.N. intervention through their vote in the Security Council. The United States has been unable to form a coalition of states that support the removal of Assad and would be forced to engage in a military intervention without sufficient international support. Because the United States and European Union are already utilizing economic sanctions and diplomatic relations to remove chemical weapon stockpiles, further military action is regarded as unwarranted. At this point, removing Assad from power would likely spark tension with Russia and China. Intervention in Syria is also unsupported by a majority of American citizens who fear another Iraqi- or Afghani- style commitment in the Middle East. Acting without international or domestic approval would have negative political consequences for the Obama administration.

Undermines American Influence

At this point, I’d like to discuss several reasons why the removal of the Assad Regime would be beneficial for the United States. Firstly, because the Assad Regime is allied with those with whom the U.S. has strained diplomatic relations, it’s continuing presence in the Middle East undermines American influence in key policy decisions. The continuing rule of Assad’s regime in Syria increases Iran and Hezbollah’s influence in the Arab world. Assad is Iran’s most powerful ally in the Arab world. Iran has provided funding, weapons, troops, and leadership to Assad’s regime throughout the conflict. Assad’s continuing presence in the region strengthens the influence of Iran and Hezbollah and poses a threat to Sunni Arab states and Israel. Through their connections with Iran, the Hezbollah has provided military personnel and other support to Assad’s regime. According to Edward Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, “An Iranian-backed restoration of the Assad regime would increase Iran’s power and status across the entire Middle East.” Removing Assad from power would allow Washington to “undermine Iran’s regional posture” and to “downgrade the Islamic Republic’s role in the Arab-Israeli conflict through Hezbollah.”

The continuing rule of Assad’s regime also increases Russia’s and China’s influence in the Arab world. In the past, Russia has worked with China to prevent interventions in Syria and to arm Assad’s military. Leaving Assad in place allows Russia and China a greater degree of control in the region at the United States’ expense. Removing Assad from power would give the United States greater control over policy outcomes in the Middle East and give it power to protect key allies in the region. Partnering with a new Syrian government would offer a variety of advantages in the Middle East and would allow the United States to have greater control over terrorist groups in the region.

Could Keep Conflict from Spreading

The second point I’d like to make is that, though the Assad regime is better equipped to rule the country than the divided opposition forces, removing the Assad regime may be the only way to keep the conflict from spreading. There is no clear end in sight to the Syrian conflict, as neither side has the power to vanquish the other. The conflict could continue indefinitely if nothing is done to put an end to the violence. Several countries in the region are on the brink of instability, and the conflict in Syria has already exacerbated tensions in Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. The continuation of the Syrian civil war could have regional spillover effects in these countries as well as in Jordan and Israel. The war in Syria has had destabilizing effects in Turkey in particular. When the conflict initially began, the Turkish government accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in Turkey’s own internal conflict. When the Syrian civil war first broke out in mid-2011, Syrian forces shot down a Turkish fighter jet, set off car bombs at a Turkish border, and fired artillery rounds into Turkish territory. Though Turkey did not retaliate at the time, tensions still remain high. Removing the Assad regime from power would appease Turkey and other U.S. allies in the region and prevent the civil war from escalating in ways that would harm these countries. Removing Assad from power would also cut Syria’s ties to Hezbollah, which could critically damage the group’s position in the region. This would be beneficial to the U.S. and to U.S. allies in the region.

Could End Human-Rights Disaster

My third and final point is that American intervention could end the human-rights disaster in Syria and stop the exodus of Syrian refugees to neighboring countries. The chemical attack that took place in August of 2013, killing hundreds of civilians, was the culmination of years of smaller-scale abuses. Assad’s regime has attempted to stifle protests using brutal techniques that have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including women and children. Given Syria’s history of human-rights abuse, a U.S.-led military intervention would result in fewer casualties than would result if Assad’s regime were left in place. Tens or hundreds of thousands more deaths may yet occur, depending on how long the conflict goes on. Removing Assad and putting an end to the conflict could be the best way to end this senseless violence.

Ending the civil war would likely prevent the further devaluation of Syrian currency and improve economic conditions. In the past four years since the beginning of the uprising, the value of the Syrian pound has fallen by 45 percent. Food prices have risen to dangerously high levels, unemployment has become widespread, foreign investment has come to a halt, and tourism has all but ceased. Ending the civil war by removing Assad’s regime and establishing a stable system of governance would improve access to work and food for many civilians. This would be valuable both to Syrians and to U.S. citizens who have spent almost two billion dollars in humanitarian assistance to Syria since the start of the conflict.

American intervention would also stop the exodus of refugees to neighboring countries. Syria’s neighbors, several of whom are partnered with the United States, have been overwhelmed by the influx of refugees from the Syrian war. The immigration of refugees strains the resources of neighboring states and has catalyzed unrest and ethnic violence. The United Nations reports that as many as 4.25 million Syrians have been displaced within the country and that over 2 million refugees have migrated to neighboring countries since the conflict began in 2011. Following the chemical attacks that took place in August of 2013, and the subsequent threats of foreign military strikes, outflows of refugees have increased. The United States is authorized under the Migration and Refugee Assistance act of 1962 to respond to “unexpected urgent refugee and migration needs” when it is important in U.S. national interests to do so. If the stalemate continues, removing the Assad regime from power may be the only way to end the ongoing human-rights disaster in Syria and stop the exodus of refugees to neighboring countries.

Concluding Thoughts

Today, I’ve discussed the potentially positive and negative consequences of removing Assad’s regime from power. Those who argue against interference claim that Assad’s regime promotes stability in the region and is more religiously moderate than the fundamentalists that would rise to power in Assad’s absence. The use of military force to achieve Assad’s removal also lacks international support and is widely condemned by the U.S. public. Those who support the removal of Assad’s regime claim that Assad’s presence in the Middle East undermines American influence in the region. His removal could prevent the Syrian conflict from spreading to neighboring states and might end the ongoing human-rights disaster in the region. Each of these potential costs and benefits must be carefully weighed when considering intervention in Syria. U.S. foreign policy must be attentive to the nuances of the Syrian situation.

Bibliography

Blanchard, Christopher M., and Jeremy M. Sharp. Possible U.S. Intervention in Syria: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, September 12, 2013. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/R43201.pdf (accessed April 4, 2014).

Luttwak, Edward N. “In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins.” The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Last modified August 24, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html.

Nerguizian, Aram. Instability in Syria: Assessing the Risks of Military Intervention. Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 2011. http://csis.org/files/publication/111213_SyriaMilitaryIntervention.pdf.

Pollack, Kenneth M. Breaking the Stalemate: The Military Dynamics of the Syrian Civil War and Options for Limited U.S. Intervention. Saban Center – Middle East Memo No. 30, August 2013. http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/08/09military syria civil war us intervention pollack/08_pollack_syria.pdf (accessed April 4, 2014).

Yadlin, Amos, and Avner Golov. Regime Stability in the Middle East: An Analytical Model to Assess the Possibility of Regime Change (Memorandum 131). Institute for National Security Studies, December 2013. http://d26e8pvoto2x3r.cloudfront.net/uploadimages/systemfiles/memo131new.pdf (accessed April 4, 2014).