Why Washington Shouldn't Arm Syria's Rebels

[xchrom]

http://www.thenation.com/article/166300/why-washington-shouldnt-arm-syrias-rebels

he term “Arab Spring” never accurately conveyed the grim conditions of protest in Syria, even before last year’s mostly peaceful demonstrations turned increasingly to armed resistance in response to brutal repression by the government of Bashar al-Assad. But now—after a killing rate so high that human rights observers can give only rough estimates, after protracted government bombardment of Homs and with reports of growing arms supplies to the resistance from neighboring Lebanon and Iraq—the crisis has become truly ominous. As if that isn’t bad enough, the failure of the Arab League’s observer mission, followed by the Russian and Chinese veto of the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for a transitional government and elections, seems to have stymied diplomatic solutions.

Up to now, the Obama administration has rightly deferred to regional actors. But the frustration so far of regional and UN diplomacy poses the question, Where should US policy go from here? Not surprisingly, Senator John McCain and other neoconservatives have called for the United States to arm and lend logistical support to the Free Syrian Army. So have some former British officials and other self-designated “friends” of Syria in the region. This is presented as a reasonable alternative to direct military intervention, for which there is little appetite.

The impulse to do something to stop the government repression and aid the opposition is understandable, but arming the resistance is a dangerous idea the administration should reject. Given Syria’s deep sectarian divisions, such a move would intensify an incipient civil war and further marginalize the nonviolent democratic opposition. Worse, it could set the stage for a dangerous proxy war in arguably the most volatile region of the world, with Russia and Iran backing the Assad regime and the United States and its European and Arab allies—perhaps joined by Qaeda-affiliated Sunni jihadis—supporting the rebels.

Because of the unspeakable horrors of a full-scale civil war, the administration should proceed with great caution. Some who favor arming the opposition cite last year’s Libyan intervention as a positive example. Not only does the continuing chaos in Libya call such claims into question; the Syrian crisis is vastly different from Libya’s. A protracted war in Syria would be almost impossible to contain, and would thus destabilize Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Israel and Iraq, setting democratization back decades. The Libyan intervention also set a disastrous diplomatic precedent: by violating the narrowly tailored UN resolution and openly fighting for regime change, the Western powers infuriated Russia, China and other countries, sowing the seeds of their mistrust and their resistance to Security Council measures on Syria.

[pampango]

1. Juan Cole: flooding a country with arms destabilizes it for decades.

Sen. John McCain has called for arming the rebels ... I would argue an even stronger case against. Once you flood a country with small and medium arms, it destabilizes it for decades. If people don’t think a flood of arms into the hands of Syrian fighters will spill over onto Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine, they are just fooling themselves.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=195051

[xchrom]

2. +1