Regime change. It sounds so bland, so calm. So scientific. So bloodless.
Here’s what it means: using force to take over another
country and then impose a new set of leaders on it or a process guaranteed to
produce a new set of leaders. It’s different from a revolution, in which an
entire people overthrows the rule of government, which is what happened in
Egypt in late 2010. When a small group takes over its own country, that’s a
coup d’état, as in Egypt this year.
Some revolutions are good like the American revolution, and
some don’t work out so well, and sometimes it starts well until someone bad
seizes control of the revolution, e.g., France in 1789 and Russia in 1917.
But no matter what the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson,
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and now Obama
administrations may say—no matter how tortuous their reasoning—a coup d’état is
never good and regime change by external forces is never good.
Some argue that all we have to do is make a pre-emptive
strike and dismantle all of Assad’s jet fighters and his chemical arms
capabilities. First of all, that’s easier said than done. Nicholas Jahr emailed
me earlier today with this quote from CBS News: “The U.S. has huge military advantage, so there is little doubt cruise
missiles could destroy targets ranging from command centers to launchers used
to fire chemical weapons” and a sarcastic statement. It all sounds so
familiar—didn’t we use similar words to underestimate the resources and
overestimate the positive impact of a military move in Viet Nam, Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Consider, too, that even if we could execute a surgical
attack that wipes out Assad’s air force in a matter of hours, wouldn’t Assad
rearm with the help of Russia, which certainly could use a foreign market for
its military goods?
I’ve also read the argument that Assad is backed by Iran, so
we can’t back down. This idea that invading or attacking Syria is a proxy for
war with Iran is just crazy. A much
better approach is to deal directly with Iran and in a series of horse trades
get them to drop Assad like a hot potato. There is much Iran and the United
States could accomplish together if we were somehow able to repair the
relationship. But if it can’t be repaired, shouldn’t we squirrel away all the
resources we can for potential hostilities with Iran? Why dissipate resources
on Iran’s proxy?
Using chemical warfare is horrible. But so is the use of
drones and carpet bombing. So is torture.
So is mowing down innocent citizens who have gathered to protest. Where
do you draw the line in terms of unacceptable behavior by government, behavior
so heinous that it requires the world to invade and seek regime change? We knew
about the forced famine in the Ukraine and did nothing. We knew what happened
in Chile and not only did nothing, but provided aid to the perpetrators.
Then there is the question of what a U.S. led action will do
to Syria. Many of those Syrians sitting on the fence about Assad may start to support
him on principle. And we all know that the most likely leaders to replace Assad
will be anti-American or will support a turn to conservative Islam or both.
What could we possibly win? Is there any
scenario with any possibility of coming true in which the U.S. comes out ahead
or in which a great deal of innocent blood is not shed? Keep in mind that the
current borders of Syria contain large populations of Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians, Turks,
Christians,
Druze, Alawite Shias and
Arab Sunnis. Remember what happened to
both Iraq and Yugoslavia after the demise of “strong man” government.
There must be some mix of economic sanctions we can still
impose. The news that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people may move
the Soviet Union finally to pressure the Assad regime. Even showering various
rebel groups with weapons and money is a preferable option to attack or
invasion.
I’m not up on the theories of the just war, but surely one
criterion must be that the war has a possibility of achieving an outcome in
keeping with the idea of justice and morality: to the western world, including
the United States, that currently means a secular, free-market democracy ruled
by mostly benevolent parties and leaders. There is absolutely no chance of such
an outcome if the U.S. or a U.S. led ad hoc army invades or attacks Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment