Over
the last week, The Global Atlas’s metaphorical lights have been off as the
three lead contributors were either out of town, dealing with Allston
Christmas, and starting the new school year and the flood of students and work
that comes with it. In that week, Pres. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry
have raised the decibel level on the rhetoric surrounding the Syria crisis.
Both have confirmed their belief that a chemical attack took place in late
August, possibly followed by another; both have pointed the finger at Syrian
President Bashar al-Asad; and both have hinted that military strikes will begin
soon, but only with congressional approval. The likelihood of a strike increased
this morning with the State Dept. ordering all of its non-emergency personnel
out of Beirut, and issuing travel warnings for Turkey and Lebanon.
I’ve
been pretty vocal in my criticism of the handling of the Syrian crisis, and I’m
not about to change now: bombing Asad’s forces would be a huge mistake. It
could have the allegedly unintended effect of toppling Asad; it could also very
well prevent the use of chemical weapons by either side or others in the
future, which of course is a desirable outcome. Yet its other effects would be
so negative and detrimental to finding a sustainable peace in Syria that they
would vastly outweigh any positives that could result from such a strike. As I
have written
before, the time for a military intervention has long passed, and toppling Asad
without a negotiated settlement in place leaves us with unsavory choices for
his replacement.
