America’s litmus test on Syria

The recent White House statement, appealing to the Bashar al-Assad regime to allow U.N. inspectors to visit the “alleged” sight of the chemical attacks, is appalling. The Obama administration has a serious deficiency in viewing the Syrian situation for what it is. The Assad regime should not to be mistaken for a rational player.

Time and again, the Assad regime has proved its interest in preserving its own existence regardless of the price, including the complete annihilation of its own people. With predictable consistency, Assad has showed the true depth of his megalomania. The only way for the U.S. to negotiate with someone like that is for the Obama administration to engage with him on a level that will resonate with his deep-seated power hunger; i.e. threaten Assad’s presidency.

What Obama wants to avoid

Obama administration spokesperson Mr. Earnest suggested that the Assad regime can “demonstrate that they are on the side of the international community, in opposition to the use of chemical weapons,” and “allow this U.N. team full access to the site to try to get to the bottom of what happened.” Dear Mr. Earnest, the problem is not in proving whether or not the Assad regime has authorized the use of chemical weapons against its people, rather it is in allowing such an attack to take place in the first place. If they control the stockpiles of chemical weapons within Syria, allowing for such heinous attacks, the Assad regime have crossed the “red line”; and if by some chance they did not, then they cannot be trusted to secure such weapons of mass destruction. Granted, technically, the American administration can’t, with a clear conscience, confirm that the Assad regime has crossed the chemical weapons red line set by Obama last year until it is objectively, and perhaps independently, confirmed. But, using chemical weapons shouldn’t be the only circumstance prompting a proactive U.S. stance toward Syria.

Undoubtedly, it is that proactive stance that Obama is trying to avoid. Indeed, his reaction to the intelligence community’s confirmation of Assad’s use of chemical weapons in June was limited at best, as he announced military assistance to the rebels. This is not enough. General Dempsey’s letter to Congress communicated the thinking of the Obama administration quite clearly; after all it was a policy explanation more than a military one. There are a few points worth noting. Firstly, Dempsey is locked in an equation that ends with “convincing” Assad to leave power. Saying otherwise could be perceived as an assassination plan against a head of state, which is illegal according to U.S. law. Nevertheless, Assad is not thinking of the conflict in terms of staying in power or relinquishing his presidency, he is engaged in an existential battle as he tries to avoid the fate of his peers Muammar Qadaffi and Saddam Hussein. He is engaged in a game where he is hell bent on killing every last one of his foes, real or imagined including women and children, to avoid being killed himself.

Secondly, the General believes military actions that are designed to punish the Assad regime, but fall short of tipping the balance of power in this conflict “would not be militarily decisive, but would commit [the U.S.] decisively to the conflict” said Dempsey. The U.S. cannot afford to revert to isolationism. Considerable resources should be dedicated to Middle Eastern issues as America’s interests are pegged to that part of the world. Syria is a pivotal player in the Iranian-Hezbollah-Israeli triangle and in the Shiite-Sunni struggle. More immediately, Syria is the latest al-Qaeda frontier. The Obama administration can’t afford to sit this one out even if the American public doesn’t have the appetite for a new conflict.

Prestige or effectiveness; the conflict within the U.S.

Within the U.S., the administration’s response to the chemical attacks in Syria is viewed naively as an issue of prestige. McCain criticized the Obama administration for not mounting air strikes targeting the Assad regime. He plainly discredited Obama’s redline threat as “hollow.” He is correct in saying that “American credibility in the Middle East has never been lower.” Certainly, the perception holds true beyond the Middle East. the U.S. is experiencing a deteriorating global prestige as it is being ignored by the Egyptian military as it continues to violently break up pro Morsi supporters, sit-ins and never more evident in when Russia brushes off calls for it to hand over Snowden.

As far as Syrians are concerned, it’s not about U.S. global prestige, it’s fundamentally an existential issue as over 100,000 of them have died in this conflict and the United Nations estimates that there are around 1 million child refugees already. In fact, the administration is more than aware of the gravity of the situation, even though the lukewarm response speaks to the contrary. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said “the administration can’t sit idly by as the civil war claims hundreds of victims a day.”

The conflicting statements within the Obama administration signify a deep divide over the nature of the Syrian situation. Although Kerry is framing the conflict on a moral premise, it is not the real reason behind possible commitment of U.S. blood and treasure to the conflict in Syria; what’s more is the global community knows it. It is disingenuous to frame the issue in a moral frame without acknowledging the real payoffs for the U.S. Omitting its self-interest leaves people in the region suspicious of U.S. intentions as they know better. After all, the U.S. isn’t known for its consistent and systematic military intervention based on moral values; take Darfur as an example.

In the balance

The U.S. is full of meaningless talk when it comes to Syria. Its reaction as it tiptoes around whether the Assad regime actually used or approved the use of chemical weapons that lead to the killing of upwards of 1,800 people in unconfirmed reports proves its unwillingness to take an actionable stance. With what seems like increasing regularity, the administration is crossing its fingers hoping that they aren’t forced to act on Obama’s threat should it be confirmed that Assad crossed his proverbial “red line.” The reality of the matter is that the moral and principled red line was crossed when the Assad security apparatus turned their guns on the Syrian people. Further, the alarms should have been blaring when al-Qaeda started descending on to Syria in an attempt to establish a foothold. America must recognize the dangers of inaction. It is time to address the Syrian conflict with a clear purpose; moral and political.