Syria and the Least Worst Option
Intervention looks likely following a verified chemical weapons atrocity but what should be the Liberal Democrat response?
Understanding the current position
We have reached a situation where a state is committing crimes against humanity, in that it is intentionally targeting civilian populations. Indeed it is increasing such attacks and is deploying chemical weapons with increasing frequency and potency. Some have noted that this state is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention however this does not do away with its other obligations, both international and towards its own population, nor does it obviate our responsibility to protect any civilians involved.
One Security Council member, Russia, has given both vocal and material support to the Syrian regime, as well as providing diplomatic cover. Another state, Iran, has sent troops and military supplies to aid the regime. A foreign military organization, Hezbollah’s armed wing, has intervened, decisively in some battles. The government of Lebanon has been both unable and unwilling to prevent fighters operating out of its territory, this has contributed to recent clashes within Lebanon itself.
What about diplomacy? So far mere diplomatic condemnations and sanctions have only emboldened Assad’s regime, they appear to believe they can act with impunity, something which both the UN General Assembly and Security Council have stated states will not be allowed to do in the affirmation of R2P principles. We listened to anti-interventionist voices early in this conflict and their dire predictions of the consequences of such action, they that we should focus on diplomatic action and the humanitarian mission instead. Unfortunately those self same predictions have largely come to pass, arguably because we did not intervene.
The legal position is quite another matter, we need to ask and answer the following questions, each given the absence of a Security Council resolution. Can a state intervene in the affairs of another to prevent or to stop crimes against humanity? Does the Responsibility to Protect as currently adopted, override what otherwise may be the necessity for such a resolution? Does the fact that this conflict is taking place on NATO’s southern border and that there is conflict spillover into Turkey Mean that the alliance can treat it as a regional issue? Does the fact of intervention by other states and military organizations make this an international conflict already?
Immediate Options
What alternatives do we have?
Non military options are increasingly few and far between; we could try pressuring Assad’s international backers, but how? Iran is already under a severe sanctions regime, Hezbollah has chosen to abandon any political and diplomatic capital it had, and trying to apply any direct pressure on Putin’s Russia is fraught with danger and would be of dubious effect.
We could provide arms to the rebels, this would have to be done extremely carefully. There is the question of which groups to supply and to what degree. How loyal to our interests do we expect them to be or do we wish to try to buy loyalty with supplies? Do we supply Kurdish fighters? What degree of militant Islamism are we willing to tolerate? Should we exclude any group accused of-atrocities or other crimes? Then there is the question of what arms do we supply? Any anti-aircraft capability could prove a risk to our own aircraft should we intervene that way, and the more portable systems could be easily re-exported and become a threat to aircraft worldwide. Small arms, particularly battle and assault rifles and their ammunition, are always in demand but we should remember that the AK-47 and its derivatives alone have been used to kill more civilians than any other weapon since World War II, once in circulation they are difficult to remove and last indefinitely. It would seem that the larger the weapon system and the more controllable its ammunition, the less threat, post-conflict, it would pose.
Another option is a minimum level of air or missile strike for a short duration as a punishment and deterrence for atrocities. This has the advantage of relatively easy target selection, e.g. airbases and other large targets away from urban area, minimizing the risk of civilian casualties and collateral damage, particularly important with the widely touted cruise missile attack option which, while accurate needs safe areas to which to be re-targeted in case a mission needs to be aborted, and is only as good as the targeting information entered. If air or missile strikes target military infrastructure or hard to replace military assets such as aircraft the the regime should understand that any potential military gains from their worst violations will be more than offset by the consequence and they will hopefully be deterred from future violations. There are disadvantages however. Should repeat strikes be required target selection will become increasingly difficult as many will have been destroyed and the regime will seek to disperse targets to areas that pose more risk to civilians.It is also likely that they will attempt to to find a level of atrocity that keeps under our intervention threshold.
We might choose to follow up an initial wave of strikes with a more constant aerial presence such as was practiced over Iraq in the decade after the first Gulf War. Whilst this would require the elimination of Syrian air defences and the grounding of all its military aircraft it would give us a considerably increased ability to detect and respond to any atrocity or threat to civilians.
The most intensive operation that is conceivable is a decisive air and missile campaign, let us face it, boots on the ground, other than special operators, simply is not going to happen. This ’Libya option’ would be expensive and not without risk, both militarily and diplomatically. Syria is not Libya it would be a far harder operation and we would likely lose aircraft and their crews. The risk of Russia becoming involved exists but is, in my view, minimal, after Kosovo both NATO and Russia have learnt to stay away from each others’ operations. There exists a greater risk of conflict with Iran and no doubt, some will attempt to push us towards that, something we should guard against, however I think the Iranian leadership has more sense than to get involved in a shooting war that could lead to strikes on its own territory.
Other Factors
There may very well be civilian casualties and collateral damage, it is a sad fact of any military action that this happens and the larger the action, the more likely such incidents become. As stated above, minimizing civilian casualties will depend on target selection and the weapons systems employed, despite negative publicity and propaganda firing missiles from drones is less likely to cause collateral deaths than other methods of delivery.
Power vacuums would need to be filled before undesirable elements take control and attention should be paid to preventing atrocities by out purported allies. There is already ample evidence of various rebel groups being involved in such crimes.
We need to put more resources into preventing conflict between rebel groups if at all possible, they are naturally jockeying for power and resources, however it is, once again, civilians who come off worst.
Keeping it Liberal
Having said all this we must bear in mind what we are seeking to protect is the right to life and liberty of the individual, something for which the current regime in Syria displays total disregard. Whichever option we choose it should be selected on that basis alone.
Along with any military action we must continue to and increase as required, our support for the humanitarian mission. We should be establishing ways of enabling ordinary Syrians to take charge of their own affairs and build the institutions of self governance that they think best in the interim.
Syrians must be free to make their own choices free from oppression or the paternalism of other states.
