Syria

Marco Rubio finally said it the other day.  We need to do something in Syria.  The U.S. has far more interest in establishing a democratic ally in Syria than it does in Libya or Yemen.  Syria is a major supporter (sending money, people, and weapons) of the Iraqi Insurgency, as well as similarly supporting Hamas and Hezbollah, U.S. designated terrorist organizations that are constantly lobbing rockets into Israel.  In fact, it could be claimed that Syrian sponsored terrorist groups are the only thing holding Israel and its Arab neighbors back from obtaining long-lasting peace, and by default Syria therefore is the main problem.  Syria has been a destabilizing force in the region for decades, yet we haven't done a thing to counter Syrian actions.  If that weren't enough, Syria is a major ally of Iran, who we have been attempting to isolate for years over anti-democratic practices and their nuclear weapons program (alleged), not to mention their support for Iraqi insurgents and piss-poor human rights record.  Taking Syria away would cut off a major source of Iranian strength, and tip the balance of power over to Israel and the West, which is crucially important when dealing with Iran, especially in negotiations over their alleged nuclear weapons program.  If eliminating a major enemy in the War on Terror, shifting the balance of power towards Western allies Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey, eliminating Israel's biggest enemies, and generally making the Middle East a more peaceful, stable, and cooperative region, weren't enough, economically, opening up the Syrian markets for American business, especially gaining access to Syrian oil (there isn't as much as other M.E. countries, but arguably this may make Syria a better trading partner as their economy isn't dependent on oil, making it far more stable and having greater opportunity for a variety of American business development), as well as the large Syrian and regional financial services market would only serve to enhance America's economic position in the Middle East.  One of the major reasons for the revolution stem from Syrian human rights abuses and repealing laws enabling the government to arrest and detain Syrian's without cause and limit, as well as protesting the lack of democratic political rights of Syrian citizens.  The U.S. has repeatedly stated its commitment to spreading democracy and promoting freedom and human rights around the world, and Syria should be no exception.

  Syria is also generally believed to have an active chemical weapons program and has been accused by the U.S., Israel, and the West of attempting to develop nuclear weapons under the disguise of a peaceful civilian nuclear power program.  Syria has openly attempted to purchase research reactors from Russia and China, and has supposedly (secretly) received North Korean help, including materials, in building a reactor.  Syria claims to want a nuclear weapons-free Middle East and only pursuing a peaceful nuclear power system for civilian purposes, but Western nations, mostly the U.S. and Israel, claim that Syria truly seeks nuclear weapons, possibly as a balance to Israeli nuclear weapons.  Israel has gone as far as to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor facility in 2007, claiming it was intended for weapons research/production.  Russia, China, Iran, and many other states and even the IAEA and UN have criticized Western nations for rushing to judge Syria without adequate reason to believe they are developing weapons and not providing any evidence that the program isn't for civilian purposes, and the IAEA criticized the Israeli bombing by claiming that while there was uranium present, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was being used to make a reactor, let alone weapons..  However, intelligence photographs of an unfinished reactor and photo's of a Syrian site resembling a North Korean nuclear reactor site have been used by the U.S. and Israel to justify its claims.  Syria has even offered to cooperate with the IAEA as long as it isn't "at the expense of disclosing our military sites or causing a threat to national security".  Whether or not they seek to develop nuclear weapons, Syria's chemical weapons program is definitely a threat to U.S. allies and peace and stabilization of the region.  The chemical weapons program is also denied by the Syrian government, although they have said that a balance to Israeli nuclear weapons is important and Syria is one of the very few nations not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, in which members agree not to develop or possess chemical weapons.  This program is also widely accepted by governments as well as non-governmental organizations such as national security think-tanks, policy research organizations, NGO's pursuing peace and WMD non-proliferation, and Middle East security experts and analysts.  Syria has the delivery systems for both types of weapons, and therefore constitutes a threat to American interests and our allies directly in the Middle East, so supporting the removal of Syria's current government would be an important step towards ending its WMD programs and eliminating the threat to American interests.

    I just wrote a long opinion piece on the controversies surrounding U.S. foreign policy, focusing on the policy of spreading democracies and the reasons behind it.  In short, the biggest reasons spreading democracy and U.S. foreign policy is so controversial is because it has been so contradictory and often hypocritical.  For example, the U.S. claiming that spreading democracy, promoting freedom and human rights, and opening up free market economies is its top priority while at the same time supporting dictators such as Mubarak in Egypt or Musharaff in Pakistan has caused huge amounts of criticism for the U.S..  It would, therefore, be important for the U.S. to be more consistent in its foreign relations, not only for support domestically, but also for increased support internationally, including support for multilateral (coalitions as the government has called them recently) actions supporting U.S. interests, better relations with our allies, more countries aligning themselves with the U.S., and better international public opinion for the U.S., allowing governments to support us, U.S. influence to grow, and American economic interests in foreign nations to grow.  On the Syrian topic, it is quite contradictory for us to support the democratic revolutions in Egypt and Libya, going as far as to use military actions in the latter, while at the same time not publicly supporting the Syrian movement, let alone not taking any kind of actions whatsoever.  We cannot use military action is Libya to "protect civilians" but do absolutely nothing while people are getting massacred in Syria.  If the U.S. is going to claim to put human rights, democracy, and freedom at the top of its priorities, we cannot sit back and watch Syria take military action on its own people who are peacefully protesting.  The contradiction and lack of commitment to our own values and stated policy goals will only hurt U.S. image abroad, which is already pitiful, push other nations further away from us, and cause the U.S. to lose support, both politically and militarily, for current and future actions in spreading freedom and U.S. interests.

   Finally, spreading democracy to all countries is beneficial to the U.S..  Depending on what IR theory you subscribe to, helping create democracy in Syria will benefit the U.S. in different ways.  Liberal theory, and the democratic peace theory in particular, tells us that democracies are much less likely to go to war with each other, and are more likely to cooperate on the international level.  Cooperation also promotes peace between democracies by creating interdependence economically, politically, and in security, which makes peaceful resolution, rather than war, the best and most logical action in resolving conflict, as it is in neither country's interest to destroy the beneficial ties the countries share.  According to realpolitik, supporting democracy in Syria would benefit the U.S. by eliminating the current threat of Syrian support for terrorism and WMDs, increasing security at home and for U.S. interests abroad.  It would also help grow American influence in Syria, increasing U.S. power in the region.  So whether you believe in liberalism or realpolitik, supporting the Syrian democratic movement is beneficial to the U.S.

  For all of these reasons, it is time to support the Syrian democratic movement and help dispose of the current government.  We can't sit on the sidelines any longer.  Supporting the recent democratic revolutions in the Middle East, wherever they are, is crucial if we are to gain any kind of immediate and long lasting peace in the Middle East.  If nothing else, and I hate to say this, supporting the democratic movements and new governments will give us access to Middle Eastern oil, hopefully at a cheaper price.  Fortunately, it will also help us fight terrorism and increase national security, as well as opening up markets for economic growth.  It is beneficial for us and the people in the Middle East for us to support the recent wave of democracy, but the president has to stop sitting on his hands.  Inaction is the worst possible option in the current situation; it will only show weakness and indecision on the part of the president, inviting further criticism, decrease support and influence for the U.S., and may even possibly invite attacks against the U.S..  If we can't stand up to the Syrian government, how are we going to stand up to Iran, North Korea, or possibly the Chinese?  Now is not a time for indecision, but action, and the administrations reluctance to support the democratic revolutions is destroying American credibility.  We must act now.