Humanitarian Intervention: Why not Syria?

          Following the Cold War, the United States of America saw an increase in their economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living.  In light of its newfound state of global superiority, the U.S. attained a large degree of power in the international sphere.  Moreover, the jubilation ignited by the conclusion of the Cold War was short lived as it was overshadowed by the commencement of the Gulf War—the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.  Subsequently, the United States demonstrated its position of military power by intervening in the Middle East.  With the assistance of fellow allies such as Great Britain, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the United States was able to dismantle the invasion by the means of armored and airborne infantry potencies. After the success in Kuwait, the U.S. continued its acts of humanitarian intervention in Somalia; however, it did not yield the same results.  Furthermore, the backlash from the failed mission in Somalia, may explain the U.S. absence in Rwanda despite the immense humanitarian crises—the mass slaughter of Tutsi. Moreover, a similar pattern has emerged in sight of the crisis in Syria.  Like the failed success in Somalia, the intervention in Iraq did not go over smoothly ensuing intense criticism of US intervention in the Middle East. Thus, I believe there is reluctance on behalf of the United States to intervene in Syria resulting from the fear of a repeat of Iraq and the conflict of interests with fellow allies, such as Russia.

Currently, the United States has refused to intervene in the humanitarian crises happening in Syria.  According to “The Syria Strategy Vacuum” article in Foreign Policy magazine, Marc Lynch indicates, “many in Washington view this refusal to intervene in Syria, like a withdrawal from Iraq, as an abdication of leadership.”  However, as Lynch clarifies, “the United States can’t afford, and the public doesn’t want, another Iraq or Afghanistan—that’s why few openly recommend a full-scale U.S. intervention.”  Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush believed it in his prerogative to exercise the wrath of the world’s great power on the pretext of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction.”  Yet, it would later be determined by U.N. inspectors that such weaponry was nonexistent. Subsequently, political leaders were heavily “criticized as responsible for launching the war on false premises,” which resulted in atrocious cost of lives, anguish and depletion of resources.  Thus, an important lesson the U.S. acquired from the mistakes made in Iraq was that military intervention might mean severe limitations on what can be achieved.  It is easy for a great power, such as the U.S. to exert their military power, but once they execute a debilitating attack, it’s difficult to abdicate responsibility.  The United States, since Somalia and then Iraq have exercised caution in relation to their intervention, which can explain its reluctance to get involved with Syria.

In addition to the fear of an Iraq replication, the United States refusal to intervene in Syria can be attributed to the conflict of interest that may arise from fellow Security Council member—Russia.  Despite the growth of international disapproval, Russia has not ceased to express their support to President Bashar al-Assad.  One can assert that Russia’s backing is driven by its preservation of interest in Syria.  Currently, Syria has emerged as one of Russia’s active consumers of their weaponry.  Subsequently, Russia “has warned the US … against taking one-sided action against Syria.”  Moreover, Russia states that the Syrians themselves should deal with Syrian affairs, as they continue to supply them with artillery.

Essentially, the U.S. holds an unsteady position regarding humanitarian intervention in Syria.  Consequently, due to their past intervention experiences in the Middle East coupled with the UN Security Council member—Russia’s constant block of anti-Assad solutions, I believe that the United State will continue to abstain from its involvement in Syria.