U.S. intervention in Syria is a dangerous move


The Obama administration's announcement last week that it would start direct military aid to Syrian rebels is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.

For over a year now, the U.S. has been helping reactionary Saudi Arabia and Qatar funnel money and weaponry to opposition groups in Syria, even though exactly who has been getting the money and arms is unclear.

Over the same time period, violence and bloodshed has steadily increased in Syria, with the death toll now over 90,000, and refugees flooding neighboring countries. There has been a surge in sectarian violence, much like the horrible militia violence that wracked Iraq during the U.S. occupation.

Inserting the U.S. more directly and adding more weaponry into this toxic mix is a recipe for disaster, in our view and that of many others.

In recent months, major news media have been filled with reports of chaotic divisions among Syria's opposition forces, and the growing role of fanatical al-Qaeda-like Islamist groups. There have been reports of truly barbaric attacks by such elements, including, for example, a video of a rebel leader cutting out a government soldier's heart and putting it in his mouth.

According to virtually every recent news report, the Syrian opposition has no clear leadership and is fractured among contending groups. It is not clear who, if any of them, represents the majority of Syria's people.

In this context, the administration's announcement that it plans to increase the "scale and scope" of its support to the so-called Syrian Opposition Coalition, including "direct support" (as opposed to channeling military aid through other countries like Qatar), is reckless indeed.

White House foreign policy advisor Benjamin Rhodes, who announced the new policy on Thursday, claimed that the administration was comfortable working with the opposition coalition. McClatchy reporter Hannah Allam called that "an odd assessment, given that U.S. officials told McClatchy only two weeks ago that the State Department was so fed up with the coalition's lack of progress that it was considering diverting millions of dollars in U.S. funds earmarked for the group." Another administration official said the coalition has "obviously been a very unstable organization."

The White House claimed that it is ramping up intervention because it has determined that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons, crossing a "red line" that President Obama declared last fall. But experts say that evidence of chemical weapons use - by the government or by the rebels - is still unclear. The number of claimed victims of such chemical weapons is 130 to 150, a tiny number compared to the more than 90,000 dead in the fighting so far.

It appears that the chemical weapons issue is a pretext that the administration is using to escalate its military role. Commentators are pointing to several factors behind the administration's move. These include:

* following recent military successes by the Assad regime, a fear that the Syrian rebellion could collapse. This would deal a blow to the U.S./UK/French desire to oust Assad and put in a moderate, West-friendly government that would be part of an alliance against Iran;

* the fear that collapse of the Syrian rebels would make the U.S. "look weak" on the world scene;

* pressure from conservative and liberal warhawks at home - most recently including Bill Clinton;

* interventionist pressure from Britain and France, former imperial powers in the Middle East. This is expected to be a big topic at this week's G8 meeting in Northern Ireland;

* the "humanitarian intervention" policy that advocates military intervention with a human rights face as a way to advance U.S. geopolitical interests. This approach has gained ground with the appointment of Susan Rice as national security advisor and Samantha Power as ambassador to the United Nations.

The White House announcement did not specify what the ramped up U.S. intervention would consist of. According to Reuters, knowledgeable officials say the U.S. will provide automatic weapons, light mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, but not shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles that could bring down Syrian military planes and helicopters. Also, these officials say, for now, the U.S. is not supporting setting up a "no-fly zone" over Syria, which would involve major U.S. and European military involvement to counter Syria's extensive air defenses. For now?

Just last December President Obama achieved the final withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, after our nine-year military debacle profoundly damaged and destabilized that country. It will take Iraq a long time to recover. Do we really want to unleash the ugly reactionary forces at play in Syria? Next door to Iraq, Syria occupies a central place in the Middle East - geographically, politically, historically, and culturally. For the U.S. to now directly insert itself militarily there, greatly increasing the chances for a disastrous outcome, is a profoundly bad move.

We urge our readers to contact the White House and congressional representatives and call for no military intervention of any kind in Syria. The only solution to the crisis there is through thoughtful diplomacy that places a priority on the wishes and interests of Syria's democratic-minded people.

Photo: As the G8 meeting opened in Northern Ireland, with President Obama in attendance, Monday, June 17, members of Oxfam placed white roses and gravestones on the ground outside Belfast City Hall, symbolizing the bloodshed in Syria. Oxfam called on the G8 leaders to throw their weight behind a political solution to the conflict. (AP/Peter Morrison)

Post your comment

Comments are moderated. See guidelines here.


  • Excellent editorial. Thanks. This clear statement should be spread far and wide.

    Not to mention the horrible impact at home of more money for wars while closing schools and cutting food stamps.

    Posted by Beatrice Lumpkin, 06/19/2013 8:14am (2 years ago)

  • Thank you. There has been so much confused reporting and advocating that the US should support the Syrian opposition with so little clarity and, to me, credible evidence of why escalation will help. I am glad the PW has taken a Public stand against the President's doing so. Thank you for offering a clear case for me to send my message reminding him that this grass roots expects him to use his cool head to find a way to a face saver for witting and unwitting war mongers whatever their motives and upholds 'just say no military intervention.

    Posted by Peggy Dobbins, 06/18/2013 5:49pm (2 years ago)

  • This is a really tense and explosive situation.
    This editorial is very much in order.

    We all should pass it on...

    wage peace

    Posted by Gabe Falsetta, 06/18/2013 1:53pm (2 years ago)

  • Good editotrial.

    It brings to mind something not directly related to Syria, but rather to whom the Obama administration responds. Many articles in the People's World have been critical of the "so called left" in its response to President Obama and has called for a much broader and stronger coalition to push him in the correct direction. We and Obama himself have claimed that he will respond to pressure. No doubt we need greater unity and strength.

    However, what have we witnessed with respect to Syria, healt care, and social security where I believe the coalitions have been very strong and united? In all three cases, Obama has ignored the people and bowed to the right and perhaps his own true agenda.

    It is becoming more evident that the only threat that has a chance is in the electoral area. If Obama persists in crossing the masses, he will make it impossible for the people to regain control of Congress. He may be responsible for what happened in 2010 when many stayed away from the polls in protest to his failing to listen to the majority with respect to health care.

    We can no longer afford to criticize the "so called left" as a back door defense of Obama. What will he listen to?

    Posted by David Bell, 06/18/2013 8:09am (2 years ago)

  • Those of us you liked to decry as "evil" for not going to support Obama on anything were right about this.

    Yea, we on the "ultra" right didn't like it when Dubya allowed Islamic radicals to take over Iraq, and the same thing will be far worse with Syria.

    Posted by M, 06/18/2013 12:40am (2 years ago)

  • When will it be time to "rethink Obama". Its just one disturbing revelation after another. Its clear that his first priority is the defense of neo-liberalism.

    Oh by the way, the devil made him do it, evil republicans etc. doesn't cut it anymore.

    The man is making reactionary decisions all on his own. It is disturbing.

    Posted by Bob Patenaude, 06/17/2013 6:00pm (2 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments