BRET STEPHENS: ON SYRIA…..SEE NOTE PLEASE
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324326504578466782757594240.html?mod=hp_opinion
Act now against Assad or risk chemical weapons falling into terrorist hands.
THIS OPINION IS MOOT NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED THAT THE ‘RESISTANCE” TERRORISTS ALREADY HAVE CHEMICAL WEAPONS…..RSK
‘There are no good options in Syria.”
From this truism, endlessly repeated by people who think they’re clever, comes this non sequitur: The U.S. should steer as far clear from Syria as it’s possible for a superpower to steer. “If he [Bashar Assad] drops sarin on his own people, what’s that got to do with us?” an anonymous Obama adviser told the New York Times the other day. Good to know the foreign policy of the United States is in the hands of Alfred E. Neuman.
But foreign policy is never a simple choice between options marked “good,” “bad” and “not our problem.” In the real world, and especially in Syria, it’s usually a menu consisting of “bad,” “possibly worse” and, sometimes, “definitely-bad-but-probably-necessary.” Please choose, Mr. President.
In particular, draw up a list of the things it would be nice to do, and pay them lip service. That’s what you’ve been doing anyway. Then draw up a list of the things you must do, and make them happen. That’s what you haven’t been doing, which is why the Syrian crisis keeps getting worse.
On the first list: Humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees—an excellent job for the EU. Sorting out the internal political disputes within the Syrian opposition—perfect for Turks or Saudis. Urging a fresh diplomatic initiative with the Russians—a wasted effort, as all such previous efforts have been. Worrying about the shape of a political transition in Syria—a speculative exercise over which the U.S. will have little influence.
AFP/Getty Images
Tokyo, March 20, 1995: Treating victims of the subway sarin attack.
On the second list: Preventing further use and distribution of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpiles. Preventing an outright victory by Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies. Preventing the al Qaeda-linked al Nusra Front from gaining de facto control of the Syrian opposition. Preventing the collapse of the Hashemite dynasty in Jordan.
Oh, yes: Prevent. Prevention got a bad rap in the past decade, especially when it morphed into an attempt to reinvent entire societies under the banner of freedom. But when it comes to foreign policy, the alternatives are “ignore” and “react.” In Syria, the result of an ignore-and-react policy is a country whose fires risk burning down the entire neighborhood.
So what should the Obama administration do?
(1) Disable the runways of Syrian air bases, including the international airport in Damascus. A limited military strike prevents the regime from deploying jets against its own people. It prevents Iran (and Russia) from supplying it (and Hezbollah) with arms. And it enforces U.N. Resolution 1701, which bans weapons transfers to Hezbollah, and No. 1747, which bans Iranian arms exports.
(2) Use naval assets to impose a no-fly zone over western Syria, including Aleppo, Syria’s largest (and most embattled) city. A U.S. threat to shoot down Syrian military aircraft, including helicopters, will keep the Syrian air force grounded without requiring the U.S. to destroy Syria’s sophisticated anti-aircraft capabilities.
(3) Supply the Free Syrian Army with heavy military equipment, including armored personnel carriers and light tanks. Syrian insurgents have no shortage of light arms, but right now they’re losing the war against the conventionally superior Syrian army. Giving the FSA military capabilities can speed the defeat of the regime and give it the upper hand against the Nusra front while posing little risk that the equipment could someday be used by terrorists or threaten Syria’s neighbors.
(4) Throw money at Jordan, no questions asked. Mr. Obama promised King Abdullah a paltry $200 million to help Syrian refugees during his visit to Amman in March. But what the king really needs is cash to buy off potential political opponents and maintain oil and food subsidies. Those subsidies may be lousy economics in the long run. But when the alternative is losing the last remaining moderate Arab regime, then Milton Friedman can wait.
(5) Be prepared to seize and remove Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile, even if it means putting boots (temporarily) on the ground.
Mr. Obama has categorically ruled out sending troops to Syria, and he plainly regrets drawing a red line that he didn’t mean to honor when it came to the use of chemical weapons. But even scarier than the threat of Assad killing more Syrians with those weapons is the possibility they would fall into terrorist hands—Sunni or Shiite—as Syria dissolves further into anarchy. That may have happened already. It will certainly happen if nothing is actively done to stop it.
(6) Read “Underground,” Haruki Murakami’s journalistic account of the 1995 sarin attack on the Tokyo subway. Here is an eyewitness description quoted in the book:
“There were bodies up and down the street, not sitting down but lying flat out, writhing in pain, struggling to loosen their collars and ties. People vomiting, too. A girl had vomited and was trying to take her handkerchief to wipe her mouth, but she couldn’t even manage that. She looked so ashamed, she tried to hide her face.”
Americans have spent the past weeks traumatized by the attacks in Boston. What if some future Tsarnaevs use sarin instead of crude explosives and cookware? Would that explain, to that unnamed Obama adviser, what all that stuff going on in Syria has got to do with us?
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Comments are closed.
