U.S. should tread with caution in Syria

Editorials

Discussion

COMMENTING ON STORIES:

Welcome to our story comments feature. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including the unpopular ones. We only ask that you keep your conversations clean, civil and on the topic of the story you are commenting on.

Coinciding with our websites redesign, we launched our new story comments feature through Disqus.

Disqus gives users the ability to log into our story comments feature so that they may be able to track their conversations, receive emails when their comments get a reply or to even have your comments update onto your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

For the time being, our story comments feature will continue to have the ability to post comments anonymously. We reserve the right to require registration in the future using your name and verified email address.

Not all comments are deemed printable. Some are disqualified at the newspaper’s discretion for a number of different reasons. Please follow our Online Rules of Conduct at all times.

RULES OF CONDUCT:

We reserve the right to remove comments that are unacceptable, to wit:

1. False and inacurate statements.
2. Personal attacks. Explicit name-calling.
3. Harassing, harmful, vulgar, obscene and defamatory language.
4. Threatening statements or statements that suggest violence.
5. Hate speech of any kind.
6. Intolerant comments on religion, race, age, gender, sexual preference or disabilities.
7. Accusations of criminal activity.
8. Content that is harmful to children and minors in any way.
9. References to any type of sexual activity and other private matters.
10. Random and inflammatory statements that are off topic.
11. Advertising of any kind.
12. Typing in all caps.

WE ENCOURAGE REASONABLE AND COURTEOUS COMMENTS THAT:

1. Create conversation on issues of interest and concern to fellow readers and local community members.
2. Express opinions and contrarian views.
3. Stimulate debate with respectful language.
4. Stay within the boundaries of these rules.

WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO SUSPEND OR TERMINATE ACCESS FOR:

1. Violating any of these Online Rules of Conduct.
2. Deliberately disrupting discussions with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or spam.
3. Misrepresentation of identity or impersonating another user.

WE WELCOME:

1. Flagging violations of these rules that you observe to our attention.

MONITORING:

We monitor comments regularly Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Approval of comments outside of this time (including weekends) will be sporadic.

comments powered by Disqus

February 18, 2012

Anonymous Daily Star The Daily Star Sat Feb 18, 2012, 02:25 AM EST

With Russia and China preventing the United Nations from calling on Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step down, some have suggested alternative methods of forcing regime change.

U.S. Sens. John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham said last week that President Barack Obama should send weapons to the Free Syrian Army, the band of armed civilians and army defectors responsible for a series of attacks on Assad's forces in recent weeks. This suggestion, while no doubt well-intentioned, is unwise for several reasons.

Syria shares borders with Turkey, Israel and Iraq. When the Syrian conflict ends, excess weapons would likely end up on the black market throughout the region. Not surprisingly, Turkey has advised against arming the rebels.

Also troubling are the sectarian divides threatening to rip Syria apart. The country's minority sects are fearful of a takeover by the three-quarters Sunni Muslim majority. Adding weapons to this already-volatile situation would only make it worse.

Concerns about what might replace the regime were raised this week when al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri called on his followers to bring down Assad. Two days earlier, U.S. officials told McClatchy News that al-Qaida set off two bombs in Aleppo, Syria's largest city.

More interestingly, those officials said al-Qaida's Iraq branch has long been eyeing Syria as a means of challenging al-Zawahiri's authority.

"This was Zawahiri basically taking the shackles off," one official said. "The main al-Qaida force has been decimated in Pakistan, and these guys (al-Qaida in Iraq) may get a new lease on life."

Russia's stated rationale for standing with Syria is its fear that a U.N. resolution could lead to military intervention, as was the case in Libya last year. But with British Foreign Secretary William Hague saying this week his country is unlikely to send peacekeepers to Syria, it's unlikely that the U.S. would go it alone.

If air strikes alone could enable Assad's own people to oust him, a Libya-style intervention might be more palatable. But Muammar Gadhafi's standing army, just 50,000 strong after being intentionally weakened following several failed military coups in the 1980s, had only about 10,000 loyalist fighters and 800 tanks tasked with defending a country larger than Alaska. Gadhafi also lost top-ranking generals to defection.

Syria's army, by contrast, has an officer corps dominated by Assad's Alawite co-religionists. And with 250,000 troops and 4,800 tanks patrolling a nation slightly larger than New York, Assad's force won't be defeated easily.

Fortunately, the tide seems to be turning against him. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said last week he estimates 40,000 Syrian soldiers have defected. In time, such attrition will break Assad. Until then, the U.S. should avoid making any rash decisions in Syria, a nation of vital strategic importance.