The decision facing the United States today is whether or not to launch a military strike against the Syrian Assad regime. Despite what the media would have us believe, we did not arrive suddenly at this decision. For the past five months I’ve worked for Syria Direct, a news organization which reports on the Syrian Civil War. My involvement with the organization has given me insight into the conflict and I’ll sum up the most important part right now: nobody thinks this can be carried off without a hitch. 

I write this article with no small amount of hesitation and humility. I don’t have access to the intelligence reports or the military briefings, and I don’t claim to understand the scope of U.S. interests in the region. What I can do is offer some context for the debate around the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria, as well as an argument against that intervention.

Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has recently added to his lengthy list of atrocity crimes by using chemical weapons against a civilian population. The most likely military action against Assad would consist of a “targeted and limited strike,” which would comprise Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at military targets. Such a military strike would be intended to cripple Assad’s forces, reducing the violence in the region and--most importantly--force Assad to “think twice” before using chemical weapons again. 

But is that really how a strike on Syria would go?

First, it’s important to ask the question, “Who are we dealing with here?” Yes, Assad is a villain. He’s an evil man who has committed many evil acts, but fundamentally he is a man with his back to a wall and a vast arsenal of weaponry as the only thing between him and the end of a noose. For this reason, Assad’s rulebook is necessarily sparse and in a conflict where many factions are vying for control, the consequences of his actions are limited. By contrast, the rulebook of the U.S. is filled on every page and the consequences of military intervention are broad. 

Take our Tomahawk cruise missile strike, for example. First, there is no guarantee that a strike against Assad’s forces would be limited to military casualties. Civilians always die in such attacks, or suffer in other significant ways. For example, if Assad’s forces are demolished, services provided to Syrians by the military could mean countless families starve or lose access to medical supplies. In fact this particular strike option almost seems to be a guaranteed disaster recent reports indicate that Assad has bussed civilian prisoners to military airfields, in order to discourage outside strikes on Syrian military bases. Civilans--the first people we would be trying to help with this strike--would likely be the first to die.

Even if we go with the Tomahawk strike (an option we can barely stomach if the reports about civilian prisoners are to be believed), it is clear a militarily achievable objective is non-existent. We can’t use brute force to push Assad towards the negotiating table, and it doesn’t stand to reason that an act of aggression would deter him from using chemical weapons in the future. Any aggression on our part opens up a super-highway of possible paths, none of which are too appealing for a nation that just retreated from a decade-long war in the region. Sure, we might cripple Assad’s military; however, this would only make his regime more desperate and drive sympathetic nations and peoples to his side. And in a bizarre twist, it would increase the likelihood of him utilizing chemical weapons, because our intervention provides him with an excuse to use all military options at his disposal. 

It is also worth noting that U.S. actions do not exist in a vacuum. Our involvement necessitates an increase in involvement by Iran or Lebanon. These two nations, which have been propping up Assad’s regime with weapons and fighters, would have carte blanche to ramp up their support and widen the conflict. In that case, what does the U.S. do next? Launch another strike in another country? Or will the Syrians beat us to it and strike Israel? The option of a strike leaves the U.S. with little to gain and a lot to lose. To claim otherwise is ahistorical.

The other important question to ask is why we are considering military action in the first place? What is it about chemical weapons that invoke our ire? Over 100,000 people have died in the Syrian Civil War, at the highest estimate; deaths from chemical weapons represent 1.5% of the total number of lives lost. Keeping perspective is an important part of decision-making. We should ask ourselves whether we are advocating a strike based upon an emotional reaction to the use of chemical weapons, while disregarding the larger context of the conflict. 

The vast majority of deaths have been a result of more ubiquitous and mundane weapons systems, which don’t provoke the same emotional reaction. This makes the “red line” argument a distinction without a difference. The argument seem to revolve around the idea that lives lost to chemical weapons carry more weight than those lost to gunshot wounds, or to starvation and sanitation-related illnesses in refugee camps. Cold though it may sound, moralistic, emotional arguments about “protecting the innocent from terrible weapons” cannot be allowed to take precedent over rational decision-making when it comes to military intervention. Assad hit a uniquely exposed nerve and now, in our pain, we want to strike back. Youtube videos of twitching children play on our need for retribution, but it is a need we must resist if we are to effectively end the systemic suffering of the Syrian people.

Many have characterized this as a “damned if we do, damned if we don’t” situation, in which an impotent and hypocritical U.S. will be forced to wait out the conflict. But this argument paints in broad strokes and misses the fact that we are already deeply involved in the Syrian conflict, and have been for some time. Whether it’s former Ambassador Robert Ford meeting with the opposition, providing arms assistance to the rebel forces, or the commitment of over $195 million dollars in aid to help internally and externally displaced Syrians, the U.S. is actively engaged in providing assistance (albeit while avoiding direct military action). 

So where does this leave us?

When you end up playing by the other fella’s rules, you will always lose, regardless of how you felt you played the game. If we allow ourselves to be seduced into retaliating, we will be viewed as the aggressor. That may seem paranoid, but it is in fact a very likely outcome. Let’s face it: the conflict has been going on for long enough that Assad can use chemical weapons against civilians and STILL maintain military support. This should tell us something about the determination of his backers.

What the U.S. should realize at this point is that when we are faced with a choice between two poor outcomes, we should leave the game altogether. We should play by a new game, one that has more equitable rules.

What we need now is not a psychologically tempting military reaction which seems justified because we find the idea of chemical weapons so loathsome. What we need is to pursue options which balance the rules of our engagement.

This could mean thawing out relations with Russia and coordinating efforts to quell the conflict on both ends. Or it could mean appealing to the economic concerns of middle-class Syrians who have been hesitant to pick a side, unsure where their future lies. Or it could be an entirely different approach which we can’t think of when our finger is on the button.

But right now, the game we are playing is unbalanced and heavily favors our opponent. We must table the discussion of a strike, and work towards options which are more favorable to our interests.

 

Read more Neon Tommy coverage of Syria here.

Reach Contributor Gabriel Bernadett-Shapiro here.