My thoughts on Syria (written pre-attack).
As any student of social science knows, the way that questions are framed can significantly influence both the range and content of possible answers. I suspect that support for the impending military action against the Syrian state by the US, France and UK is based on a misunderstanding of what the appropriate question to ask in this situation is. I suggest that there are two principal questions that can be asked and that the wrong one is receiving far too much attention. For convenience, let’s label these Question A and Question B.
Question A:
How do we deal with Assad, a leader who uses chemical weapons against his own people?
Question B:
What is the appropriate response to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers, each using the conflict to further their own ends in the region and beyond?
The current scenario in Syria is being perceived by supporters of military action as an attempt to find the best way to answer Question A. If we accept (and it may be that we must) the underlying assumption that there is a ‘we’ that has some form of obligation to ‘deal with’ such acts of immorality, it is very difficult to answer such a question with the idea that we do nothing. If we frame the question this way, then it is obvious that some form of action is necessary; we must punish whoever is responsible, or at the very least deter them from repeating such action. Whether Trump, Macron and May actually see it this way is far from certain, but they are certainly using this argument to justify their behaviour. It seems that supporters of military action, liberals and conservatives alike, are united in accepting the terms of the question and in accepting, some perhaps more reluctantly than others, its grim answer.
Question B is a much more fundamental question than Question A because Question B necessarily contains Question A. To ask what to do about Assad is also to ask what the appropriate response is to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers.
Those who view Question A as the primary one fail to take this into account. Their response to what is happening in Syria is based on a misreading of the situation. Viewed in isolation from the wider context (i.e. in isolation from the scenario depicted in Question B, there is a simplistic answer - punish the Syrian regime.
So, what would happen if the Syrian regime were to be ‘punished’? The outcome of any military action is notoriously difficult to predict, but it seems impossible to envisage consequences that don’t at the very least prolong the agony of the Syrian people, let alone increase the likelihood of a major war in the Middle East and possibly beyond.
On pain of the accusation of tokenism, any US attack must be extremely forceful. It must seriously cripple the Assad regime’s ability to wage war. There are suggestions that this may involve the partial, or even total, destruction of the Syrian air force. It may involve measures other than this but whatever happens, it will have to send a ‘serious message’ to Damascus.
Best case scenario: The US attack is a ‘success’. The Assad regime is punished, its chemical weapons are destroyed and the Syrian military is seriously weakened. What follows is a prolongation of the conflict. Emboldened anti-Assad forces (remember that many of these are al-Qaeda style jihadists) will be on the ascendant and the nightmare of Syria’s civil war will continue. The ordinary people of Syria, as always, will pay the price, and for a greater period of time.
Probable scenario: The US attack is a ‘success’. The Assad regime is punished, its chemical weapons are destroyed and the Syrian military is seriously weakened. What follows is an escalation of the conflict. Other key players in the war take advantage of the vacuum left by the depleted Syrian military. Iran, Russia, Israel, Saudi and its jihadi proxies see the opportunity to further their aims and bring themselves more directly and more forcefully into the conflict. The bloodshed continues, the risk of the (already looming) wider Shia vs. Sunni(+Israel) confrontation in the Middle East increases and once again the ordinary people of Syria, and possibly beyond, pay the price.
Nightmare scenario: US forces directly confront the Russian military. It seems very hard to imagine a face-saving way out of this scenario for either party. All that can be hoped for is that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction prevents any US/Russia conflict from spiralling out of control.
So, how to answer Question B? What is the appropriate response to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers, each using the conflict to further their own ends in the region and beyond?
Intervention by outside powers is the direct cause of much of the suffering and will not help the conflict end. All people who wish to see an end to this conflict, whether from Russia, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA or wherever, have a duty to urge their governments to withdraw from Syria and push for a negotiated solution. At some point in the future, each party to the conflict will have to speak to one another. Every missile fired in Syria postpones this moment.
As any student of social science knows, the way that questions are framed can significantly influence both the range and content of possible answers. I suspect that support for the impending military action against the Syrian state by the US, France and UK is based on a misunderstanding of what the appropriate question to ask in this situation is. I suggest that there are two principal questions that can be asked and that the wrong one is receiving far too much attention. For convenience, let’s label these Question A and Question B.
Question A:
How do we deal with Assad, a leader who uses chemical weapons against his own people?
Question B:
What is the appropriate response to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers, each using the conflict to further their own ends in the region and beyond?
The current scenario in Syria is being perceived by supporters of military action as an attempt to find the best way to answer Question A. If we accept (and it may be that we must) the underlying assumption that there is a ‘we’ that has some form of obligation to ‘deal with’ such acts of immorality, it is very difficult to answer such a question with the idea that we do nothing. If we frame the question this way, then it is obvious that some form of action is necessary; we must punish whoever is responsible, or at the very least deter them from repeating such action. Whether Trump, Macron and May actually see it this way is far from certain, but they are certainly using this argument to justify their behaviour. It seems that supporters of military action, liberals and conservatives alike, are united in accepting the terms of the question and in accepting, some perhaps more reluctantly than others, its grim answer.
Question B is a much more fundamental question than Question A because Question B necessarily contains Question A. To ask what to do about Assad is also to ask what the appropriate response is to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers.
Those who view Question A as the primary one fail to take this into account. Their response to what is happening in Syria is based on a misreading of the situation. Viewed in isolation from the wider context (i.e. in isolation from the scenario depicted in Question B, there is a simplistic answer - punish the Syrian regime.
So, what would happen if the Syrian regime were to be ‘punished’? The outcome of any military action is notoriously difficult to predict, but it seems impossible to envisage consequences that don’t at the very least prolong the agony of the Syrian people, let alone increase the likelihood of a major war in the Middle East and possibly beyond.
On pain of the accusation of tokenism, any US attack must be extremely forceful. It must seriously cripple the Assad regime’s ability to wage war. There are suggestions that this may involve the partial, or even total, destruction of the Syrian air force. It may involve measures other than this but whatever happens, it will have to send a ‘serious message’ to Damascus.
Best case scenario: The US attack is a ‘success’. The Assad regime is punished, its chemical weapons are destroyed and the Syrian military is seriously weakened. What follows is a prolongation of the conflict. Emboldened anti-Assad forces (remember that many of these are al-Qaeda style jihadists) will be on the ascendant and the nightmare of Syria’s civil war will continue. The ordinary people of Syria, as always, will pay the price, and for a greater period of time.
Probable scenario: The US attack is a ‘success’. The Assad regime is punished, its chemical weapons are destroyed and the Syrian military is seriously weakened. What follows is an escalation of the conflict. Other key players in the war take advantage of the vacuum left by the depleted Syrian military. Iran, Russia, Israel, Saudi and its jihadi proxies see the opportunity to further their aims and bring themselves more directly and more forcefully into the conflict. The bloodshed continues, the risk of the (already looming) wider Shia vs. Sunni(+Israel) confrontation in the Middle East increases and once again the ordinary people of Syria, and possibly beyond, pay the price.
Nightmare scenario: US forces directly confront the Russian military. It seems very hard to imagine a face-saving way out of this scenario for either party. All that can be hoped for is that the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction prevents any US/Russia conflict from spiralling out of control.
So, how to answer Question B? What is the appropriate response to a vicious civil war, fuelled by outside powers, each using the conflict to further their own ends in the region and beyond?
Intervention by outside powers is the direct cause of much of the suffering and will not help the conflict end. All people who wish to see an end to this conflict, whether from Russia, France, Iran, Saudi Arabia, USA or wherever, have a duty to urge their governments to withdraw from Syria and push for a negotiated solution. At some point in the future, each party to the conflict will have to speak to one another. Every missile fired in Syria postpones this moment.
RSS Feed