McCain, Lieberman and Graham, "The risks of inaction in Syria": A Call for Heightened US Involvement

[Subsequent to the publication of this blog entry, it became known that Syrian Prime Minister Riyad Hijab and his family defected last night to Jordan, and there was also a bomb explosion today at the state-operated TV building in Damascus. McLean, are you listening? It's well on its way to being over.]

Where is Bashar al-Assad hiding? Syria's president has disappeared since four members of his inner circle died in an explosion on July 18. Meanwhile, the rebels in Syria are tenaciously holding onto their positions in Aleppo, Syria's largest city, notwithstanding persistent shelling and fire from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets. Senior Syrian army officers continue to defect on an almost daily basis (Colonel Yarub Shara, head of the Political Security in Damascus, defected yesterday to Jordan), and notwithstanding claims by the Syrian government that Damascus is secure, rebels continue to engage in hit and run operations there.

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The risks of inaction in Syria" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mccain-lieberman-and-graham-the-risks-of-inaction-in-syria/2012/08/05/4a63585c-dd91-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?hpid=z2), Senators John McCain, Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey O. Graham call for heightened US support of the rebels:

"Unfortunately, while opposition fighters inside the country have grown more capable in recent months, Bashar al-Assad’s regime is far from finished and is now unleashing even more indiscriminate violence against civilians, using tanks and artillery, helicopter gunships, militias, snipers and, for the first time, fighter aircraft."

In fact, quite the contrary is true. Assad's disappearance and unrestrained use of his army against the rebels is evidence of his imminent collapse. Assad has lost any vestige of legitimacy, and the demise of his regime is only a matter of time.

Should the US more aggressively support the rebels? Is this indeed an opportunity to render a resounding blow to Iran's pursuit of Middle East hegemony and to undermine Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon? Acknowledging the complexity of the conflict and risks associated with greater support of the rebels, McCain, Lieberman and Graham nevertheless advocate a more proactive American role in the fighting:

"It is not too late for the United States to shift course. First, we can and should directly and openly provide robust assistance to the armed opposition, including weapons, intelligence and training. Whatever the risks of our doing so, they are far outweighed by the risks of continuing to sit on our hands, hoping for the best.

American help should go to those groups that reject extremism and sectarianism in both word and deed. As in Libya, the relationships we build with armed groups inside Syria now will be indispensable going forward."

However, the conflict in Syria, between the rebel Sunnis and a ruling Alawite minority, does not resemble the Libyan conflagration, which amounted to a tribal war. Moreover, it is not so easy to identify groups in Syria that "reject extremism and sectarianism." Ultimately, the Assad regime will be replaced by the anything but moderate Muslim Brotherhood.

The battle in Syria has become a proxy war between Iran, supporting the Assad regime, and Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, assisting the rebels. The conflict is further muddled by the aspirations of the Kurds, living in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and Iran, for autonomy, and recent fighting between the Turkish army and Kurdish separatists.

Whereas the outcome of this conflict is certain, Assad's departure can be hastened if air support for his army is eliminated. However, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are better positioned to provide this aid to the rebels.

Sure, the US has a strategic interest here in undermining Iran and Hezbollah, and it also needs to keep an eye on Syrian stockpiles of chemical weapons. But the US also must avoid being sucked into a quagmire, where the involvement of an outside non-Muslim entity could provoke unforeseen consequences.

Issues of morality? Absolutely. Obama, at the onset of his presidency, made the tragic mistake of courting Assad by sending Senator John Kerry on repeated visits to this tyrant. Later, Obama and Hillary Clinton were tardy in condemning the horrific attempts by Assad to suppress the revolt against his regime. It's more than a little late for Obama to be condemning Assad's outrages, particularly when the rebels are also engaging in savage reprisals, but his voice must still be heard, even at the risk of upsetting Obama's cozy, one-way relationship with Russia's Putin.

My suggestion would be that in addition to vociferously demanding in all international forums that Assad immediately step down, the US should seek to help the thousands of Syrian refugees, who have crossed into Jordan and Turkey. Iran will have a hard time denigrating such a gesture of American goodwill.