Military Intervention in Syria

From Michael Weiss, at The New Republic, "Break the Stalemate! A Blueprint For a Military Intervention in Syria":

In the past several weeks, the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and other independent rebel brigades have made great strides: They have “liberated” key cities such as Zabadani, 20 miles outside of Damascus; set up checkpoints in restive areas throughout the country; and even begun to seize a few tanks and armored vehicles. For a network of ragtag militias, armed mainly with AK-47s and RPGs that defecting soldiers have given or sold them, the rebels have impressively taken the fight right up to Bashar al-Assad’s doorstep. But the rebels can only go so far. “If no one helps us, we can hit the regime painfully but we can’t topple it, not [when it has] jets and tanks,” Alaa al-Sheikh, the spokesman for the Khaled Bin Waleed Brigade in Rastan, told me.

This is a fair precis of the current situation in the nearly year-long Syrian uprising, in which the Assad regime has killed 7,000 people and dispossessed and imprisoned tens of thousands more. The rebels are waging a guerrilla war of attrition designed to exhaust Assad’s army and security forces rather than defeat them: They hope that if and when external help comes, they can make quick work of whatever regime elements remain. In that way, it would be a mistake to describe the crisis in Syria simply as a humanitarian catastrophe. It is also a military stalemate—one that the West can decisively break in favor of anti-Assad forces by offering them military assistance.

Going to war is a dangerous and risky business, and critics of Western intervention in Syria have understandably focused on three main hazards: the proliferation of jihadist groups, regional destabilization, and the rise of sectarianism (particularly between the Sunni majority and the Christian and Alawite minorities). But the worst fears of what might happen following an intervention have already come to pass and only threaten to grow worse with continued inaction.

Continue reading.

And here's Weiss' blueprint for intervention, "Intervention in Syria? An Assessment of Legality, Logistics and Hazards."

The Los Angeles Times has an editorial out today opposing intervention, "Avoiding the Syria Trap." Check the arguments there. It's obvious that "diplomacy" won't work. And if the U.S. did intervene it would be against the wishes of Russia and China, and the West could risk a new Islamist regime coming to power in Damascus. But in the absence of regime change, it's likely that Assad will continue to massacre his own people. There are no good options here.