What are we doing in Syria?
It’s time for the U.S. to honestly reassess policies towards Syria and consider our moral obligation to the survivors of wars that we have fueled.
It has been nearly twelve years since the Syrian civil war began, and while much of the American public is concerned with other issues, the conflict continues to drag on. Coverage of the war has largely vanished from the headlines of U.S. media outlets despite the fact that approximately 900 American troops are still active in the country. In recent weeks, the Turkish government has begun to express interest in pursuing a diplomatic path forward with the Syrian government to end the war, something that was unthinkable in the earlier years of the conflict. Syria’s ally Russia is playing a key role in the diplomatic initiative, with Moscow serving as a venue for initial high level meetings between the two sides and also exerting pressure on the Syrian government to engage in talks. Meanwhile, Turkey continues to be in the unique position of balancing between Russia and the West, something that has become increasingly relevant due to the conflict in Ukraine.
Any possibility for a peaceful end to the Syrian civil war would be a welcome development, especially given the devastating impact that it has had on innocent people. However, a crucial element that must be considered in a potential peace process is the treatment of refugees. The conflict continues to cause one of the world’s largest refugee crises today, with nearly 3.6 million Syrian refugees currently residing in Turkey. Although initially lauded for their acceptance of so many refugees, the political climate inside of Turkey has worsened and become increasingly hostile. With elections scheduled to take place in 2023, tensions are rising as Turkish politicians have sought to capitalize on xenophobia and threaten to expel Syrians. Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has frequently weaponized refugees against the European Union in order to use them for political leverage, an action that has been widely condemned as blackmail by EU officials.
The complex nature of the Syrian civil war has involved various external actors who have intervened to different degrees in pursuit of their own strategic interests, in what has largely been an international proxy war. While a comprehensive accounting of the details and timeline of this conflict is beyond the scope of this article, it has been well documented by many. The reverberations of the Syrian civil war cannot be overstated. Not only have millions been displaced, but the conflict has destabilized the region and energized far-right movements throughout the West, particularly in Europe, but also in the United States and Canada. Dehumanizing rhetoric has had a significant impact on the treatment of and attitudes towards those fleeing Syria and other conflict zones as well.
Incoherent American Policies
American policy makers have much to answer for across multiple presidential administrations. U.S. foreign policy in Syria has been muddled from the beginning. Both President Obama and President Trump pursued policies that fueled the conflict, and neither was able to ever clearly articulate what exactly the United States’ core objectives were and how they could realistically be achieved to the American public. This has been a longstanding issue with American foreign policy particularly in the post 9/11 world. There are many factors which have contributed to this dynamic, including a wide civil-military gap, exacerbated by the existence of an all-volunteer fighting force, unaccountable policy makers, and the infamous foreign policy “blob”. To make matters worse, Congress has utterly abdicated its necessary role in foreign policy making for many years. Perhaps the best example that illustrated the incoherence of American policy making in Syria was in early 2016 when it was reported that militias armed by the Pentagon were engaged in fighting militias armed by the CIA. This ludicrous episode was another example of how American funding and efforts to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad had gone awry.
Sadly, the election of President Joe Biden has not resulted in significant changes or improvements to U.S. policies in Syria. Despite earlier comments stressing the importance of diplomacy, U.S. actions in Syria under Biden have not followed through on this commitment. It’s time to recognize that U.S. policies in Syria have failed and are not helping to improve the situation on the ground or alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. Even if one is not concerned with the humanitarian costs, and instead views the conflict through a purely geopolitical lens, the fact is that America’s policies in Syria are not helping to advance our nation’s interests at home either. At a time when more and more Americans are struggling economically, it has become difficult to explain how military actions abroad are helping to improve conditions at home for the American people. This dynamic was illustrated well in a 2020 report from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace which examined the connection between U.S. military interventions abroad and their impact domestically:
“Those at the security helm needed to more directly question whether strategic U.S. military interventions were, in fact, aligning with the interests of the American middle class. Had missions been more narrowly constructed around counterterrorism, counterproliferation, and conflict containment, for example, rather than around regime change and an ambition to remake the Middle East backed by the force of arms, they might have reduced the risks of protracted conflict, regional spillover, and fiscal backlash at home. This fundamental question about the scope of U.S. vital interests should have featured far more prominently in White House Situation Room deliberations on national security matters.”
As evidenced by the recent Turkey-Russia-Syria talks mentioned earlier, the U.S. is increasingly losing influence in the Middle East. The solution to this dilemma is not to succumb to inertia, nor is it to re-engage militarily. Instead what is needed is more humility and a recognition of the limits of American power. A shift in thinking such as this will most definitely prove to be deeply challenging for a foreign policy elite that has grown accustomed to the delusional belief that they can act unilaterally in the world with no limits. To be clear, Bashar Al-Assad’s actions have indeed been extremely brutal, but we should not fool ourselves into believing that we can solve every issue in the world through force or by simply toppling leaders that we dislike, particularly when American interventions have so often failed. Furthermore, American sanctions are rarely successful in achieving their stated goals, and the “Caesar” sanctions in Syria are no exception to this. They have not resulted in ousting Bashar Al-Assad from power, and instead have punished innocent Syrians. It should also be noted that these sanctions are of questionable legality.
What is to be done?
Our nation needs to undergo an honest reassessment of its strategic goals and interests in the world today, and consider how we can better craft our foreign policy to achieve them. The best thing the United States could do now is support diplomatic efforts in Syria while working to ensure that humanitarian concerns are prioritized, particularly the treatment of refugees. This may be difficult since Russia has asserted itself as a major player in negotiating an end to this conflict, and U.S. — Russian relations are now at an all-time low.
While nothing can undo the harm from shameful decisions by the Trump administration to slash refugee resettlement and implement its draconian travel ban, the U.S. can and must do more now to support refugees. We have a moral obligation to help people fleeing from war and persecution have an opportunity to pursue a better life, particularly when we have played a direct role in contributing to that suffering. This is particularly true in the case of Syria. Supporting refugees must be a consistent principle, and not one that nations adopt when it is politically convenient. So far, the Biden administration has not delivered in this regard.
The world is going through historic transitions today, and it is time to realize that the “unipolar moment” has passed. As we enter into an increasingly multipolar world which requires robust international cooperation in order to tackle our most pressing international issues, the United States has an opportunity to change course. Hopefully future American leaders will find the courage to finally recognize the mistakes of their predecessors and chart a new, wiser path in foreign affairs that is centered around international cooperation and promoting peace. Unfortunately, that outcome seems unlikely in the near term.
This is part two of a short series on Syria inspired by The Swimmers. You can read part one here.
