Should the U.S. Intervene in Syria with Military Action? >
U.S. Has Many Non-Military Options in Syria
United States should do everything short of a direct military intervention to support Syrian democracy movement
February 14, 2012
About Daniel J. Gallington:
Daniel Gallington is the senior policy and program adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Va. He served in senior national security policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Justice, and as general counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
The democracy movement in Syria is a grassroots, largely social-media driven effort that we should aggressively support, short of direct military intervention. The current Assad regime is doing what Assad's father did in 1982, when he killed over 25,000 of his own people. This Assad has robbed his country blind, and has gotten help from Iran to murder his own people to stay in power with his mafia–like, totally corrupt organization. In addition, Assad has for years supported various terrorist factions in the region. However, as the situation worsens for them, Assad and his cronies are making escape plans.
[See pictures of the crackdown in Syria.]
How to speed up his departure? There are a range of options that can be undertaken separately or in combination:
- Arm the various opposition groups and provide intelligence and logistic support for them.
- "Lead from behind"--as we did in Libya--with other concerned nations taking active roles in the actual military operations against Assad.
- Work diplomatically with the Arab league, insofar as they agree that Assad must go.
- Work the Assad departure with a flood of proactive "information operations", using social media and other available media.
- Encourage other concerned nations to support financially the democracy movements in Syria, and to fund reconstruction there after Assad leaves.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the turmoil in the Middle East.]
The popular revolution in Syria is a continuation of last year's "Arab Spring", and can only work to the benefit of democracy movements everywhere—we should do everything short of direct military intervention to support it.
- Follow U.S. News Debate Club on Twitter
- Join the debate on Facebook
- Read the U.S. News debate: Should the United States Consider Military Action to Hinder Iran's Nuclear Program?
- Other Arguments
-
#114586
No — Too many political, practical, psychological obstacles stand in the way of a Syrian intervention
AARON DAVID MILLER, Former Adviser to Republican and Democrat Secretaries of State
-
#2188131
No — U.S. can intervene in Syria without repeating Iraq's mistakes
BRIAN KATULIS, Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress
-
#3148114
Yes — The case for intervention in Syria is even stronger than it was in Libya
JAMIE M. FLY, Former Director for Counterproliferation Strategy at the National Security Council
-
#4133104
Yes — Intervening in Syria is tough, but the civilian victims deserve it
JAMES ROBBINS, Senior Fellow at the the American Foreign Policy Council
-
#5127105
Yes — How many Syrian civilians must die before Obama sees the need for an intervention
AMMAR ABDULHAMID, Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies
-
#7102103
Yes — Syria is trending toward a Libya-style intervention
JAMES DOBBINS, Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State
