Finish Him

Without international intervention, there's a good chance that Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad, could still rule for years.

BY DANIEL BYMAN | FEBRUARY 2, 2012

Sanctions are dealing blows to the regime's popularity, but when the pie shrinks access to the government becomes even more important. Those with guns eat first; the opposition eats last. Saddam Hussein's Iraq endured crippling sanctions for over a decade: It found work-arounds and used the scarce revenue to reward supporters while denying aid to enemies. And the humanitarian toll was a particularly effective public relations tool to discredit those who would isolate it internationally. Remember, it took a foreign invasion to topple that dictator.

Nor is Assad standing alone. Iran looks to be doubling down on Syria, its only Arab ally. Tehran, though it is under pressure itself, can give the regime an economic lifeline and enough bullets and shells to keep shooting down protesters -- resources that can make all the difference. Next door, Assad's and Iran's partner Hezbollah offers the Syrian regime another ally and an economic lifeline for smuggling through Lebanon. Iraq's regime, which may be eager to do Tehran a favor, may also turn a blind eye to smugglers bringing goods and weapons into Syria from Iraqi territory. And then there's Russia -- an arms provider and the veto-wielding immovable obstacle at the United Nations, blocking international efforts to isolate the regime.

Perhaps the biggest hope for Assad is the disorganization of the opposition itself. No charismatic leader unites the opposition. Syria has strong local and regional identities, and the opposition Syrian National Council's factionalization reflects this on-the-ground reality. How many Syrians the SNC speaks for is an open question, and critics claim it is dominated by Islamists and does not speak for many Syrians. In contrast to the Libyan rebels, the SNC operates largely in exile, because it doesn't control a part of Syria from where it can base itself without risk. Not surprisingly, there are sharp divisions between those inside the country bearing the brunt of the regime's brutality and those who live safely outside Syria and represent the country abroad. So far at least, the rebels enjoy some sympathy from international governments but at most limited, active support from major powers -- which are also quick to emphasize that international military intervention is not on the table.

In short, the Syrian dictator is not strong enough to subdue the opposition, but they are not strong enough to oust him -- a scenario for continued civil war.

So, if Assad is to go he may need a push from the international community. Particularly important is the effort to build up the Syrian opposition: uniting it and training its militias so they can be more effective in battle. At the same time, the opposition must be pushed to avoid religious sectarianism at all costs. Not only will this make the Alawites and other minorities fight all the harder, but it will also make Syria more difficult to govern should Assad fall. In Libya, one of the less dramatic but more important steps Western powers took was to build up the Libyan opposition and make it a more representative and effective institution.

But intervention must also be on the table to signal that the regime cannot put down the opposition by force -- U.S. and allied rhetoric should warn that this option will grow more likely if Assad doesn't step down. Ratcheting up the pressure today will help convince Assad loyalists that the regime cannot weather the storm and that they need to abandon ship now -- rather than do so when the opposition is more bloodthirsty and less in the mood to bargain. Only this forceful effort will end the rule of the leader who has been walking his people into a nightmare. Any less will see the bloodshed continue indefinitely, possibly sucking in neighboring states like Turkey and Israel, disrupting Iraq's fragile state-building efforts, raising tension further between Iran and the West, and giving autocrats elsewhere in the Arab world credibility when they claim that the alternative to tyranny is not freedom but chaos.

RABIH MOGHRABI/AFP/Getty Images

 

Daniel Byman is a professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University and the research director at the Saban Center at Brookings. He is the author of A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.

MAIGARI

4:39 PM ET

February 2, 2012

FINISH ASSAD?

It is amasing that the West sees Ayria through the specs of sectarinism. Assad hhas had his short comings but religious bigotry is not one of them. Now the GCC is fighting him for on sectarian differences not so much for "Freedom and Democracy" by whatever definition which their own citizens lack anyway!
The fall oif Asad bt forces outside Syria will only execetrbate the problems of the West because the Shauh in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia all queued up waiting for their turn at Freedom and we hope the West will not cringe and pretend all is well as the US did in Bahrain.

 

JOHNHUNT

8:05 PM ET

February 2, 2012

It's all really quite simple.

It's all really quite simple. Arm the Free Syrian Army to the teeth and Assad will fall. Even just provide enough defensive weapons such as anti-Tank weapons and the opposition will be able to secure a Benghazi-like area from which an opposition army and government can organize and spread. It's likely that the Syrian conflict can only be resolved in a way similar to what happened in Libya.

 

KANADIER

5:32 PM ET

February 3, 2012

Arming opposition groups of

Arming opposition groups of dubious loyalty to the teeth? Yeah, that's definitely never backfired before.

 

CHARLESFRITH

10:36 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Imagine If A Muslim Said We Need To Finish Him About Netenyahu?

There'd be screams about 'wiping us off the map' again.

 

9 VOLT

11:27 PM ET

February 2, 2012

Finish You

Rather than facilitating (and probably by now covertly aiding ) the violence that has been taking place for months now in Syria, President Obama and his colleagues should have endorsed Assad's early offers of concessions, negotiations, and democratic reforms. Instead, Obama and Hillary curtly dismissed Assad's efforts to make peace and negotiate with the rebels and very likely undercut any of the rebels who were willing to undertake a dialogue with the Syrian government, setting into motion the cycle of violence which is now spinning out of control. This is a deplorable strategy for a leader with fresh Nobel Peace Prize sitting on his mantel.

The article above cites the number 5000 as the number of protesters killed so far in Syria. This is the numero du jour in the American media, tossed out to us usually as the number of those killed-so-far without any explanation as to how it breaks down. If 5000 is the number of protesters killed then the media has taken it upon itself to give us a net casualty rate having already deducted the number of pro-government supporters, or neutrals from the total. We do know after all that significant numbers of pro-government supporters have been killed as much as the media wants to ignore this fly in their numero du jour. So, Mr. Byman apparently thinks 5000 is for “protesters” alone. So the passers-by killed in the suicide bombings in Damascus are not included in this number, Mr Byman? If including them would mess up the nice clean lines of your argument, well, I guess they would understand. You’ve got military interventions to instigate, and your job is hard enough as it is.

Have any of the Foreign Policy experts on this site written an article trying to rationally assess all the claims being made about the casualty rate in Syria? If so I’d love to be shown it. Because the numbers being thrown around are so ill-considered as to be meaningless.

 

AMAA1990

2:47 AM ET

February 6, 2012

Bashar and his followers are all murderers

Is this the best defense for Assad's regime, that you need proof of how the death toll has reached 5000??? for one you can just do a little research, many online videos are provided showing horrific videos, their are also live videos being streamed, you could look at the soldiers torturing captured protesters, any option will do. as to why didnt the US work with the president in the beginning, clearly because they cannot negotiate with someone that has committed inhumane acts. this violent trend of the regime isnt new, this regime has been in power due to the fear it instilled into its people. Bashars father was a murderer, in the 80's he murdered 20,000 people in the city of Hama, since an opposition group was forming. im not sure why im even replying to your post, you clearly made up your stubborn mind, but i guess ive replied so anyone reading this post can know the real truth to the story.

 

BING520

11:38 PM ET

February 2, 2012

What'd happen after Assad

It is not at all clear to me what Daniel Byman expects after Assad is removed. Byman reminds me of George W. Bush's singlemindedness in ousting Saddam. It had never occurred to Bush what must be done aftewr Saddam. Sarkozy led an effort to oust Libyan dictator, but Sarkozy is clueless as to how to help Libyans now. Violence and force are the only methods we Westerners understand how to make changes in Middle East. Bahrain brutally put down Bahraini uprising with Saudi troop. We hardly did anything. I am NOT defending Assad. I merely want to listen to more thoughtful ideas from those claim to know what to do about Syria. Getting rid of Assad may be a solution, but is not enough. It must be part of a complete solution to end the misery of Syrian people. I don't think Daniel Byman has one.

 

9 VOLT

12:09 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Apres Assad Le Deluge?

Excellent point. There is absolutely zero discussion of what comes after Assad on the media outlets I listen to.

I think the idea with guys like Byman is that a Syria in chaos, consumed by sectarian violence, is a state that can't pose a serious threat to Israel. But the US has to be implicated in this scenario otherwise things might get to out of control. The more the US is involved in the internal affairs of these volatile ME nations the more the US can be relied upon to use its military to preempt any threats to the Jewish State. Normalization of US military operations in the ME. This is the main impetus behind all this "humanitarian" intervention.

 

NICOLAS19

4:41 AM ET

February 3, 2012

there is no "roll credits" afterwards

What strikes me is the automatic reference to what happened in Iraq and Libya... as if those were so shining examples anyone would follow in a heartbeat. Going in and killing is easy and cheap - you have the biggest military in the world. What comes after, committing to the very ideals you claim to defend, that is the hard part. Obama uses the usual recipe: go in guns ablaze, kill the bad guy, photo op, roll credits (get out), you got a few good notes again. What's in it for the people of Libya/Syria? He doesn't care, he already has his votes.

 

TARDALOVA

8:36 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Finish Him

Since when is it FP's place to incite war or the removal of a dictator? I read this magazine because it mostly sticks to the facts and offers good reporting . Today's headline "Finish Him" is tacky and possibly ill advised.

Is the world so addicted to War, that the media is a vehicle for Western Powers to stir up violence? Very sad state of affairs the world is in today if that is the case. Even worse a scenario if it's the reporters goal to inflame this tragedy in the hope of achieving an even more destructive and violent outcome.

 

BING520

5:21 PM ET

February 3, 2012

FP

"Finish Him " is sensational. FP uses a lot of sensational titles like that. I guess FP believes sensationalism attracts attention, but what type of folks bother to read FP? National Inquiry readers and the die-hard fans of national morning gossiping TV news can hardly muster energy to turn the pages of FP. It is puzzling to me why FP believes "Finish Him" would be good.

 

THE_OBSERVER

9:10 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Infiltrators not protestors

The Asia Times has a good article containing a link to the leaked Report of Arab League Observer Mission. Suppressed by the GCC and neglected by the Western press, read it for yourselves.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB04Ak01.html

I'll point out two paragraphs:

"The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines. "

and

"The Syrian National Council is essentially a Muslim Brotherhood outfit affiliated with both the House of Saud and Qatar - with an uneasy Israel quietly supporting it in the background. Legitimacy is not exactly its cup of green tea. As for the Free Syrian Army, it does have its defectors, and well-meaning opponents of the Assad regime, but most of all is infested with these foreign mercenaries weaponized by the GCC, especially Salafist gangs."

Foreign interference, through and through, stirring up trouble in Syria and committing terrorist acts. These "opposition" groups are not the type of people that the West should be supporting.

 

XTIANGODLOKI

10:15 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Overthrowing a dictator doesn't always solve problems

Hasn't Iraq, Afghanistan, and more recently Egypt and Libya taught the neocons a lesson that removing a dictator could very well make matters worse? It's obvious that neocons such as the author of this article never cares for Syrian people, because if he did he would talk far more about the plan AFTER Assad is ousted, on nation building, on security, on the postwar economy. War doesn't solve problems it only force changes, changes which may not solve the fundamental problems. Since tens of thousands of lives are stake, it should be up to the Syrian citizens to decide whether they want to risk their lives and overthrow Assad.

Western interventionism only tips the scales of power and disrupt what should occur naturally. Brutal dictators should be overthrown only when there is enough of the population who support his ouster. With what's happening in Libya now I think it's naive to presume that removing Gaddafi was a good thing.

 

JUST A THOUGHT

4:02 PM ET

February 3, 2012

@ XTIANGODLOKI

You do not actually think that the purpose for all of this is to remove dictators do you? This is just a covert expansion of the Afgan/Iraq strategy. We (as a people) have to stop view these events as seperate from peak oil, the growth of China and Russia. The original plan was to spread instability from the Afgan/Iraq wars to justify military intervention. Well the population woke up to this and decried the wars. Now a new phase has been underway since the Arab Spring.

 

LOL_IN_OREGON

10:42 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Teach Iran and N. Korea a lession

Yep,
lets start making sure that the Syrian leader and his cronies get "taken care of"
(Oh, you think the "crowd" will give them a "trial"? Haaa, Haaa, Haaa)

Then, Iran and N. Korea will know what China learned:
no nukes, you're dead meat.

So, won't it be great when Iran decides, for their self protection, that those luxury yachts,
sailing into N.Y. harbor, SFO, LA, DC, ....
should all "use" their small amount of radioactive material at the same time coordinated by cellphones provided by the infidels?

So what if it doesn't actually "explode"?
Sharing the material far and wide will do the trick of keeping them
on their toes.

On the other had, evangelical, Grandpa Baby Boomer will certain fell good!

 

WEMEANTWELL

11:56 AM ET

February 3, 2012

Sickening

And from a guy who purports to be a scholar and professor.

Do they not get newspapers anymore at Georgetown? No TV, internet? The US history of using war as our primary tool of foreign policy, and of demanding and facilitating "regime change" does not seem to work out well. Is the professor unaware of the last nine years in Iraq? 10+ years in Afghanistan? Chaos in Libya and Egypt? How about the regime change the US wrought to put the Shah in power in Iran, or pick your Latin American thug o' choice. Any jolly successes there?

Oh yes and Yemen's Saleh, now in the US for "medical care."

Can we please stop deciding inside the US which world leaders are allowed to live, and which will die by our hand and then being shocked to find ourselves on the receiving end of terror acts in return?

This kind of article is just simplistic, jingoist hate. Save it for RedState and dump this crap from FP.com.

Peter Van Buren

wemeantwell.com

 

BASE

1:54 PM ET

February 3, 2012

So we all agree, this guy is full of sh**, right?

Prof. Byman,

By all means, don't let facts get in the way of your opinion. Even the Arab League's observers don't agree with your opinion, and this is despite the fact that the GCC (read: Saudi Arabia and Qatar) tried to get this report changed, and ultimately buried. Yet it made its way out. Read it and see what even the Arab League says:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

Even they disagree with you.

It looks like Georgetown is scraping the bottom of the barrel these days. What a hack.

 

SPOOD

2:35 PM ET

February 3, 2012

You are relying on the Arab League?

How stupid can you be?

Maybe you missed the FP article about how the Arab League sent the architect of the Darfur genocide as their lead human rights observer.

They don't give a crap about what is going on with Syria anymore than they care about anyone else besides themselves. It was a half-assed gesture done to give the appearance of observing.

So what do you think a genocidal general is going to say about what is going on in Syria? Maybe he gave the Syrian government tips as to how to kill large numbers of people cheaply and quickly.

 

BASE

3:37 PM ET

February 3, 2012

@SPOOD

I dont give the Arab League much credit. However, in this case the Arab League is essentially owned by the Saudis, particularly now that Egypt is mired in its own political turmoil.
Given that the Arab League is essentially a mouthpiece of the GCC, this report is pretty damn extraordinary in that - despite the GCC - they *still* say that the story concocted by the West (and the GCC) re: Syria is total bullshit. See the irony? The GCC was trying to use the Arab League to help them drive along the regime change agenda they have been concocting, and yet even this fell flat.

 

SPOOD

2:25 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Still not buying it

The Arab League Observers can't be taken at face value Their lead observer was a genocidal war criminal. This is not a fact you seem to want to take into consideration. That mission was never meant to produce any meaningful results.

All of your insisting doesn't make the report any more credible.

I would hope to disagree with the assessments of a mass murderer when it comes to human rights violations.

 

ILOVEKNOWLEDGE

2:57 PM ET

February 3, 2012

Enough is enough, it is time to remove this evil

Once Assad falls, the Islamic Republic will soon be to followed. Some people have lost their humanity and common cause for mankind that they are willing to ignore the blood of innocents that have been sacrificed for freedom as is the case here in Syria.

 

HAJIJINJAL

9:05 AM ET

February 4, 2012

Are you a human?

Reading the comment on Bymans' report made me feel like listening to BASHAR AL-ASSAD's state media propaganda. The issue here is not America or GCC or any third party eager to control SYRIA national resources that are non-existent or help ISRAEL put out a threat to its national security which is well protected under AL-ASSAD dynasty. The real issue is the plight of the SYRIAN people under the brutal authoritarian regime of AL-ASSAD ruling family that holds the grossest record of human rights violation in the world and been going on for the past 40 years. All other issues are trivia.

 

JAMES ALFORD

6:08 PM ET

February 4, 2012

Human rights? Are you serious?

Please cite for me one military intervention mounted by the United States where humanitarianism formed the fundamental justification for taking action.

Go on. I'll wait.

The reason you are failing (utterly) to come up with an example is that IT'S NEVER HAPPENED. North Korea has been under the thumb of an unimaginably repressive dynasty for over half a century. I don't see us rushing to oust the Kims. Sri Lanka languished in civil war for decades. I didn't see any U.S. cavalry swooping in there. Throw a freakin' dart at a map of sub-Saharan Africa. You have almost certainly hit a country where a brutal civil war took place in the last 30 years. Any U.S. troops show up for those?

I wish chicken hawks would just come clean about their motives. The ceaseless blood orgy is one thing; but it's doubly infuriating to be lied to, and to be lied to so unskillfully. If Dick Cheney (or whoever) just came out and said, "Hey, we have strategic financial and security interests in the following countries, and will be allocating our military influence accordingly," I would still disagree with their policy, but I'd at least respect their honesty.

But no. We're supposed to swallow these unimaginably brazen lies that tell us our intervention has something to do with giving a sh*t about "human rights." I tell you what, the next time an American diplomat gives a bullsh*t speech like that, he should do it with Guantanamo in the background.

 

BING520

1:58 PM ET

February 5, 2012

James Alford

Indeed, anybody who believe Syria is simply a human right issue is being brainwashed or chooses to ignore the obvious. We did nothing to save demonstrators from the Bahraini brutal crackdown because Bahraini is our dear friend. Bahrai still receive US military aid. Nor did we did anything to Uzbekstani dictator who killed hundreds of his own people in 2005 to keep himself in power. Uzbekistan is our major supply route from the north to Afghanistan. With Pakistan's support in question, we not only give economic aid to but provide military assiatance for Uzbekistan. Neither Hilary Clinton nor Susan Rice, our UN ambassador rumored to become State Secretary after Clinton, bothers to criticize these two countries. Susan Rice yesterday said that she was disgusted by Chinese and Russian veto of UN sanction against Syria. She knew long ago why China and Russia would veto it. Anyone who pays attention to international politics also knew. China's and Russia's position is well known. All I can say is she is a fine actress. That's what our country needs to advance our interest in the meantime making us feel we are the good guys.

All these things were reported in the news. We have a proclivity to believe that our own people are absolutely righteous an unfailingly good. Too many of us choose to ignore what we don't want to hear.

 

JAC323

10:29 PM ET

February 4, 2012

So who's war is it anyway?

Can we ever resist being the worlds policeman? The empire is getting expensive and the debts are about to come due. Let some other country be the "hero".

 

LITTLEMANTATE

11:42 AM ET

February 6, 2012

 

KUNINO

10:48 PM ET

February 6, 2012

Ah, so many, so many, so many

So many places to go, so many people to kill, so many nations to rebuild, so many billions to be spent in repairing the veterans ...