Current US policy regarding the Syrian crisis is puzzling to international analysts. Despite voicing strong support for the fall of Bashar Assad's regime, the US has been reluctant to provide arms to opposition forces. American ambivalence to direct military intervention is actually a reflection of conflicting interests on the issue.
No way out [Photo/China.org.cn]
The US always regards the collapse of any authoritarian regime as an ideological victory, though very few collapsed regimes have been really replaced with Western-style democracies. As Assad inherited presidential power from his father, the US regards his fall as a step forward for democracy in the Middle East.
The US enmity toward the current Syrian regime is also due to geopolitical reasons. For a rather long time, Assad's Syria, a key ally to Iran, has been one of the major regional powers that has been hostile to the US in its foreign policy. The US regards Assad as one of the key antagonists of Israel, even though Syria has a legitimate claim to the territory of the Golan Heights.
US prudence in regards to arming opposition to Assad is understandable. In the last ten years, the Middle East has witnessed too many cases of failed power transitions after foreign assistance pushed one side to victory.
Though US military might has showed its prowess in deconstructing regimes in the Middle East, it has achieved very little success in achieving internal order following its interventions. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are all examples.
In the case of the three countries mentioned, a glorious US military triumph has always been followed by increased bitterness among the local population. In-fighting and insurgencies have caused an even greater loss of life than the previous authoritarian regimes. None of the countries mentioned have been better off in the short term as a result of these dangerous regime change experiments.
While proclaiming a doctrine of responsibility to protect innocent lives and intervene to depose tyrants, the US has also received fierce criticism from the international community for its irresponsible practices, which have included torture, revenge killings, and detention of terrorism suspects without trial at its Guantánamo detention center.
In addition, US-sponsored regime change in the Middle East has not served the interests of US and the West at large. Iraq's democratic transition ended with the Shiites coming to power and developing closer relations with Iran; Libya's transition installed politicians who openly declared a commitment to implement Sharia law in top echelons of the government; and Tunisia and Egypt elected Islamic parties to ruling positions.
With increased US pressure, it is increasingly likely that Bashar Assad will fall as many dictators in other Arab Spring countries have. But the political differences between Syria and these other nations are also obvious. Divisions between various opposition factions, including Free Syrian Army, Syrian National Council (SNC) and National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (NCC), still remain significantly large. No one knows whether or not they can form a unified entity that can safeguard the transition effectively.
Who would rule Syria after the transition is another serious concern for the US. Judging by precedent, it is very likely that Islamic forces not necessarily friendly to the US and Israel would again rise to the top of Syrian politics. It is also reported that many Al Qaeda members have joined the Free Syrian Army to fight against the government. These factors suggest that any US assistance to topple Assad might actually damage its interests in the region.
Current US passiveness on the Syrian issue to some degree is conducive for Syrians to decide their own future. While many observers predict that Bashar Assad's regime will fall, others argue that the Syrian crisis is more complex. Without heavy weapons and external assistance from the air, the opposition doesn't stand a plausible chance to quickly win a war against the government. This raises the potential for the conflict to be long and drawn-out, with a chance that the Assad regime will prevail in the end.
The reluctance of the US to provide arms does not mean that the US is not responsible for the bloodshed that has occurred in Syria. The political support of the US and the West at large has strongly encouraged the opposition to reject a negotiated solution and instead continue to escalate the violence.
US restraint on the issue does not mean America has forfeited its option to intervene. Compared with a hasty intervention, this wait-and-see approach will better serve America's national interests. Once the outcome of the crisis becomes clearer, the US will have another chance to use its influence to guide the Syrian political process.
