More U.S. Military Intervention in Syria is Not the Answer

(Let’s give a cease-fire a thousand more chances)

The NY Times published an op-ed last week by two foreign relations experts that sanely and sensibly advocates for the United States not to add to the monstrous military mayhem in Syria. Though the latest negotiated Syrian-cease-fire collapsed (due partly to an “errant American airstrike”), throwing more U.S. bombs and bullets at the problem will be, to put it mildly, counter-productive:

“Certainly, the Syrian government and Russia have manipulated the cease-fires, using them as cover for continuing offensives. Nonetheless, fragile though they have been, these deals ratchet down the overall level of violence and save lives.”

But if the United States really wants to “ratchet down the overall level of violence” in Syria, it should reconsider its role in the Coalition airstrikes, known somewhat austerely and incoherently as “Operation Inherent Resolve.” We have been helping to drop bombs and missiles on the Syrian form of ISIS since August of 2014. The total number of coalition airstrikes in Syria is currently 5, 445, according to Airwars, with an estimated OIR-caused civilian-casualty count of 829 to 1,241 or so. This is not an insignificant number of innocent people killed by the U.S.-led Coalition in its attempt to defeat ISIS in Syria while supporting rebel militia groups fighting the Assad regime. As the NY Times reports, it is getting really hard to keep track of just whom is fighting whom:

“The messy mosaic of ground fighters on both sides has challenged Washington’s tangled allegiances. The United States is effectively allied with Iraqi Shiite militias to thwart the Islamic State in Iraq, but in Syria, some of those same militias are fighting on the side of the Assad government, which the United States opposes, and against a mix of rebel groups, some of them backed by the Obama administration.”

So not only are we and our coalition partners contributing directly to the carnage and suffering in Syria (the fact that the Coalition seems to be more accurate, responsible bombers than the Syrian government and the Russians is small comfort to the victims and families), we also are continuing to “fuel the stalemate” of ground war in Syria, in which neither the Syrian Army nor the “moderate” rebels are able to prevail. Lately, the Syrian Army and the Russians have reportedly bombed hospitals in eastern Aleppo and used “bunker-buster” bombs as well.

As is always the case in war, the civilian population caught in the cross-fire evokes the pity of the world. We look at the horrible conditions in Aleppo and other parts of Syria and we say, “What can we do to help the bleeding and terrified children?” And so often the response is — intervene, by which is meant send more weapons, more bombs, more troops. By God, do something! Act! Don’t passively watch the terror happen! And by action we imply that only military violence is the proper and practical response, even if in the short term, at least, it will increase the terror and death experienced by the innocent.

And so last Thursday there was also published in the NY Times an opinion piece by columnist Nicholas Kristof that features criticism of the “paralysis” of President Obama on the subject of Syria and a suggestion that the least we can do is launch missiles from Turkey to put big holes in Syrian runways as a way of stopping some airstrikes. Kristof admits such a plan may not work, but at least we’d be doing something. Here is how Kristof sums up Obama’s failure to act militarily:

“So far, Obama’s paralysis has been linked to the loss of perhaps half a million lives in Syria, the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State, genocide against the Yazidi and Christians, the worst refugee crisis in more than 60 years and the rise of ultranationalist groups in Europe. Aleppo may fall, and lives like Bana’s [a Syrian child] hang in the balance.”

Though I generally admire the work of Kristof, this paragraph is wildly unfair, blaming Obama for nearly all the tragedy of the Syrian conflict, a downward spiral that began when the Syrian protest against the Assad regime turned violent in response to Assad’s violent repression.

During the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton again supported enforcing a “no-fly zone” in Syria.

But this may well be just some tough campaign talk from Clinton, for surely she is aware of the significant risks of such a move, including igniting a war with both Syrian and Russian forces. Once elected president, Clinton will hopefully refrain from risking yet another military adventure in the Middle East. She has already ruled out sending American troops into Syria.

What is currently happening to children and other civilians in Syria today is, of course, awful beyond words. We must do as much as we can to help to ease the suffering but the foundation of our actions should always be to lower the level of violence through diplomacy and other nonviolent forms of pressure and resistance. We should urge Sec. of State John Kerry to continue his extraordinary efforts regarding Syria and to push for a genuine cease-fire among all the factions of fighters involved, to cease all or at least most of the violence.

Of course, we can’t talk seriously about failing to achieve a genuine, lasting cease-fire while we are still supporting and taking part in some of the firing. The first step, logically, is to resolve to stop our own firing, the firing of our coalition allies and to stop fueling the firing of rebel groups. By ending our share of the violence, we can undercut the Syrian/Russian propaganda machine, ease tensions with the Russians, and speak more firmly on the grounds of human rights while returning to hard-nosed diplomacy.

In the war in Syria and in the area of international relations in general the United States should adopt the spirit of the physician’s Hippocratic Oath: in the healing of conflicts and the restoring of peace and health, we must not, even inadvertently, cause more physical and emotional harm.