Policy Action Memorandum - Term Paper Example

?Policy Action Memorandum (PAM The Syrian Civil War The Conflict in Syria has serious implications for the US national security and vital interestsin the Middle East due to its potential for destabilization of the region as a whole and the neighboring countries, like Lebanon and Israel, in particular1. The involvement of Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, in the conflict, along with the radicalization of the Syrian opposition, e.g. Muslim Brotherhood’s influence2, evidence of al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadist militants’ presence in the rebel forces3, etc., could bring about a development very similar to, or even worse than those in Afghanistan and Libya. On the positive side could be considered a certain impact on the geopolitics of the region, namely the possibility of curbing or at least weakening Iran, insofar as the regime of the incumbent Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is a key Tehran’s ally4. There are several options available for dealing with the issue, as follows: arming the opposition forces with more sophisticated weapon systems, which might alter the balance on the ground; either surgical air strikes or a wider air campaign that would hamper the regime forces’ ground operations and weaken their capabilities, including aerial superiority over the rebels; the establishment of air exclusion zone; and a direct, full-scale ground involvement. Although the latter option is considered the most costly one, it is the only way the US could guarantee – to a certain degree however – its long-term interests in the region, including such related to the national security. Executive Summary The ongoing conflict between Bashar al-Assad’s regime and the opposition forces in Syria poses serious threats to both the US national security and long-term interests in the Middle East. The civil war is steadily destabilizing the region as whole and Syria’s neighbors in particular, most notably Lebanon and Israel. Apart from the humanitarian crisis, with over one million Syrian citizens having fled to Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey and over two other million people internally displaced because of the fighting5, the conflict could easily get internationalized mainly due to the various outside actors involved6. Syria’s vast chemical weapons arsenal is among the biggest threats to US national security mainly due to the real probability of being taken by Islamic extremist organizations after the fall of the regime. On the other hand, the likely use of chemical weapons – especially against alleged “external aggression”7 – might cause the things to get completely out of hand, including retaliation strikes from the parties concerned, further escalation of the conflict, etc.; hence a rapid and grave deterioration of the already volatile situation in the region of the Middle East. This PAM recommends a US-led full-scale intervention in the Syrian conflict, including ground, naval and aerial forces, preferably in a wide coalition with key Western allies and various partners from the Arab world, such as the coalition that fought against Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War. The direct ground involvement is the only option that would guarantee that the Syrian chemical arsenal will not be seized by terrorist organizations and/or irresponsible governments, or rogue states, which would later use it for their own purposes, most likely against key American allies or the United States themselves. The Policy Issue and it’s Relation to US National Security The ongoing Syrian civil war represents a significant issue in regard to the US national security and long-term interests in the region of the Middle East. First of all, the conflict is a major destabilizing factor in a volatile region that is by definition prone to unrest and violence. Apart from Iran’s geopolitical ambitions, this particularly rings true as far as Lebanon and Israel are concerned. Hezbollah has already got involved in the conflict, whether indirectly – via funding, arming and training the local Popular Committee militias, along with the shabiha militia network – or directly, fighting against the rebel forces around the southern edge of Damascus and the Shia villages in Homs province8. Al-Qaeda, in turn, publicly put its stamp on the Nusra Front, encouraging and urging Islamists in Syria to strive for the creation of an Islamic state that would lay the foundations of a region-wide caliphate9. Thus, if Islamic fundamentalists managed to obtain a vanguard position in Syria after Bashar al-Assad, the whole region would slide into ethnic and sectarian divides, unrest and violence. On the other hand, if became desperate enough, the Bashar al-Assad’s regime would try to provoke Israel in an attempt to rally domestic and international – the Arab world – support. The recent Israeli strike inside Syria against an alleged shipment of arms destined for Lebanon’s Hezbollah not only implies the real probability of such a development but also indicates that Israel is losing patience; moreover it’s the second strike inside Syrian territory since January 201310. The possibility of Syrian weapons, either conventional or chemical, being transferred to militant groups in the region, Hezbollah in particular, inevitably causes jitters in the Israeli governmental and military circles. The vast Syrian chemical weapons arsenal represents the biggest threat to the US national security and vital interests in the region. According to Western and Arab intelligence sources, Syria’s regime has stockpiled some 1000 tons of chemical weapons, stored in about fifty different sites11. The arsenal is mainly consisted of highly toxic mustard gas and sarin nerve agent, which, according to CIA, could be delivered via a wide range of platforms, including aerial bombs, artillery shells and ballistic missiles. If militant groups and organizations get possession of some of those weapons after the fall of the regime, they would use them against key American allies and the US themselves. Additionally, the likely use of chemical weapons – especially against Israel – might cause the things to get completely out of hand, and incur grave damage to the US reputation, both in the region and worldwide. In turn, Iran’s ambitions and nuclear tenacity would be boosted, just as Israel’s determination to be a regional power of its own. Background Information Having originated in 2011 protests in the city of Deraa, the Syrian uprising escalated in a full-scale bloody internal war, which has forced over one million people to flee the country, and claimed as many as 70 000 lives so far12. The hitherto US stance on the Syrian civil war could be characterized as precautious, insofar as the country steer clear of either direct or indirect involvement in the conflict, urging for a cessation of the hostilities and peaceful transition to democracy. On the other hand, there are pronounced Russian and Iranian interests in keeping President Bashar al-Assad in power due to the fact that Damask is a key Iranian ally in the region while Russia is Syria’s largest arms supplier; China, in turn, is mainly driven by its trade interests in the Arab world as whole, and Syria in particular, as well as by its usual stance as a US counterweight in the world of international politics. Additionally, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and other extremist groups are already involved in the conflict. The options open to the US government to deal with the issue, especially in the light of the recent developments such as the use of chemical weapons, are as follows: 1. Arming the opposition forces with more sophisticated weapon systems, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, which might alter the balance on the ground – this option may prove productive in regard to toppling the regime, but by no means secures the intact handover and subsequent destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal; on the other hand, the "blow-back" suffered in Afghanistan speaks in favor of a different approach. 2. Surgical air strikes or a wider air campaign that would hamper the regime forces’ ground operations and weaken their capabilities, most notably regime’s aerial superiority over the rebels – this approach has proven more or less successful against Col Gaddafi’s regime in Libya, but failed to impose the establishment of a democratic government after the fall of the regime. The limited success, as against an estimated cost of the campaign of over 750 million dollars13, makes this option less preferable. 3. The establishment of air exclusion zone – the same as above. 4. Direct, full-scale ground involvement ground involvement – although this option is considered the most costly one, and inevitably incurs American casualties, it is the only way the US could guarantee – to a certain degree however – that the Syrian chemical arsenal will not be seized by terrorist organizations and/or irresponsible governments, or rogue states, which would later use it for their own purposes, most likely against key American allies or the United States themselves. Additionally, the US prestige in the Middle East, as well as on the international arena, will be enhanced, and a clear message will be send to all would-be violators of the international law and order. Action Recommended A US-led full-scale intervention in the Syrian conflict is recommended, including ground, naval and aerial forces, preferably in a wide coalition with key Western allies and various partners from the Arab world, such as the coalition that fought against Saddam Hussein during the First Gulf War. Read More