Syrian troops photographed during a gas mask training exercise in Saudi Arabia during the run up to the first Gulf War in March 1990. (Tom Stoddart/Getty Images)[/caption]On April 25, the White House delivered a letter to Congress stating that the US “intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin.” As President Obama has publicly stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a “red line” and a “game changer,” government officials, analysts and international onlookers are calling on the Obama administration to decisively respond. While most critics agree that Obama should respond, few agree on how the administration could respond in a way that will help bring an end to this increasingly bloody civil war.
Until now, US strategy in Syria has focused on providing humanitarian aid, working with the Syrian National Coalition to establish a transitional government, and promoting a political solution as laid out in the Geneva Communiqué of June 2012. The US has provided humanitarian assistance through the UN, as well as non-lethal assistance to the opposition and the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The Geneva Communiqué, which is also supported by China and Russia, promotes a Syrian-led effort to transition to a democratic, free and stable state through “peaceful dialogue and negotiation alone.”
President Obama has publicly agreed that the use chemical weapons will necessitate some sort of American intervention in Syria. However, since releasing the letter, the administration has been very hesitant to confirm that the red line has indeed been crossed, stating that they are “continuing to do further work to establish a definitive judgment as to whether or not the red line has been crossed and to inform our decision-making about what to do next.”
With the lack of international consensus on this issue, the president may have to respond without the full backing of the UN Security Council, an institution which he has upheld as the central, legitimate forum for international action. Unlike Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, who directly threaten the national security of the United States, the case for military action in Syria is not as straightforward. Unilateral intervention would lead the US into another unsustainable military conflict with no clear endgame and, arguably, would not be effective in securing Syria’s future as a democratic state.
Obama’s response will have the strongest impact if his actions can support efforts to bring President Assad and his opponents to the table for negotiations. Obama could consider a few options in cooperation with likeminded countries. These would not only send a signal to President Assad and his partners that the use of chemical or biological weapons is unacceptable and a violation of the red line, but would also avoid committing troops to Syria.
Arming vetted members of the FSA is the least invasive military option. While the Obama administration provides non-lethal military equipment to the FSA, they have hesitated to take this next step out of fear that weapons will fall into the wrong hands. With the increasing strength of the Al-Nusra Front, now officially an Al-Qaeda affiliate, the threat of extremist elements taking control of the armed opposition is real. Thus, this option should only be considered with some form of accountability over the use of these weapons both during the revolution and after Assad falls.
A more risky option is enforcing a no-fly zone to neutralize the regime’s air force. For the past year, the regime has been bombing civilians throughout the country, while the rebels possess very limited anti-aircraft weaponry. Various analysts and members of Congress have proposed supplying protection for civilians and rebels, particularly in rebel-held areas in northern Syria.
The president could also consider action to secure and destroy stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. This option leaves the smallest military footprint, directly attacks the source of threat, and may reduce the number of civilian casualties if done correctly. However, such action needs the cooperation of like-minded countries and does not guarantee that such weapons will be fully destroyed.
On the diplomatic level, the Obama administration should take further action to foster a political solution to the conflict. The most important step to take is to work closely with Russia. The US has already made progress on this front in recent weeks. After US secretary of state John Kerry spoke with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, Syrian state media network SANA quoted Lavrov as saying that “today's discussions, and the discussions over the past weeks and months, indicate increased understanding, particularly by the Western countries, towards the growing dangers of what is taking place in Syria." While Lavrov has since indicated that he still disagrees with Western probes into the use of chemical weapons in Syria, the US must continue to find common ground with Syria’s strongest ally.
Both Russia and the US want to prevent Syria becoming a failed state. The Obama administration should continue to focus on the Geneva Communiqué, a proposal Russia continues to call the best foundation for any political solution. In a show of faith, the US should consider working with Brahimi to encourage US allies in the Coalition to negotiate with members the Assad regime—a move favored by former Coalition president Moaz Al-Khatib and the Kremlin.
Reciprocally, the Kremlin should work with Assad to promote a ceasefire, or at least a moratorium on aerial bombing and more protection for humanitarian aid convoys. Other goals include Russian participation in a UN Security Council vote to refer Assad to the ICC for war crimes, greater American effort to slow the flow weapons from the Gulf into Syria, and easing sanctions that harm the poor and displaced.
A military strategy alone will not bring an end to end to the conflict in Syria. As the president confronts these challenges in the coming days and weeks, his measured caution on the reports of chemical weapon usage has been the best response. His actions will have the best impact if they can secure Syria’s future as a multi-ethnic democracy through a political process in which all Syrians can participate.
