Editor's note: Ed Husain is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. Author of "The Islamist," he can be followed on Twitter via @Ed_Husain.
By Ed Husain - Special to CNN
Some of the bravest, noblest women and men I have met are members of the United States armed forces. To them, military intervention is not about winning a debate on television or sounding smart on Twitter. With the United Nations ruling out support for military options to stop the bloodbath in Homs in Syria, leading U.S. commentators are calling for NATO and the Arab League to intervene militarily.
In reality, this would mean the United States would once again carry the heavy burden of war. In NATO's recent operation in Libya, the United States provided 75% of the reconnaissance data, surveillance, intelligence and refueling planes. Syria is not Libya, and NATO without the United States is not up to the job.
The Arab League is no match for a brutal Syrian regime backed by Russia, China and Iran.
In essence, therefore, we must stop pretending about NATO or the Arab League intervening and accept that it is not "international intervention," but U.S. military intervention that is being sought in yet another Muslim-majority country. The Muslim dimension is important because the lessons of Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan are that, invariably, intervention leads to occupation, which leads to varying degrees of Islamist radicalization.
Whatever the motivations to advance U.S. military intervention, we need to address the following questions before contemplating placing U.S. armed forces in harm's way again, and demanding the U.S. taxpayer foot the bill.
First, what does such U.S. military involvement look like? In military terms, what is the "TTP?" - the envisaged tactics, techniques and procedures for U.S. armed forces? Is intervention designed to create a safe human corridor through which besieged Syrian citizens in Homs can escape, or are we talking about all-out regime change?
Second, if Assad were to be removed by force or arrested by U.S. soldiers for war crimes, who could rule Syria without an ongoing, costly U.S. troop presence on the ground? The U.S.-led, allied mistake in Iraq - to dismiss the Ba'ath party from power - led to years of chaos and killing. Today, the Syrian business sector, media, education, security, mosques and police forces are controlled by the Ba'ath party. What happens to this embedded national infrastructure? In other words, what is the day-after plan?
Third, how does the United States propose to head off the hostilities of China and Russia, who are Syria's allies? Additionally, Hezbollah, Iran and assorted Jihadist groups will see U.S. forces as sitting targets in an Arab country. Al Qaeda in Iraq will be revived with renewed strategic depth and alliance with terrorists in Syria. What is the potential military and strategic blowback in exposing U.S. forces to an array of enemies at one stroke?
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
China and Russia are Syria's allies to deter US from more foolish acts.
We wasted thousands of our brave young men for more chaos?
American public welcome the UN outcome.
What a relieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeef……………………………….
True, there should be no U.S. boots on the ground. Yet we can't just turn a blind eye to the regime atrocities. Yes, Syria is an artificial state. Its history is filled with wars and uprisings and its territory had been exposed to influence of many ancient civilisations. Moreover the country is surrounded by neighbours like Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. Iraq and Lebanon are hot spots for sectarian conflicts. The author had failed to realise, that it wouldn't be a good idea for the opposition to seek help from Israel. The Hezbollah would make life difficult for the Israelis. Turkey and the GCC countries should be more involved and the West can play a counseling role.
I totally agree with Ed Husain here. We have no business intervening in Syria being both immoral and impactical to do so. We need to quit butting into the internal affairs of other countries. Unfortunately, the right-wing politicians in Washington are not buying into this, always looking for an excuse to go to war again! This is quite repulsive indeed!!!
Agree 100%. The US needs to stop acting like it's the world policeman. We have no interest in Syria whatsoever. If NATO and the Arab League want to stop the events in Syria then let them. But it's all a game. NATO is there with Turkey right next door so there is a staging ground to use as well as Greece but will they agree not just no but HELL NO! The Arab League with all the arms that most of the members have bought from the West and Russia and who knows who else, a coalition could be formed but will that happen, it will when it snows on the moon. So let's just sit back and let someone else handle this situation and worry about the fires on the home front for once.
Is nobody willing to do ANYTHING in Syria????
Is it because the US, Europe, etc see it as a country with no natural resources... i.e. OIL???
America, UK, et. al went to Iraq and countless other places purely to get themselves a cheap supply of oil / gas... But no, let President Assad do what the hell he wants, like killing his own citizens with bombs, snipers, air strikes.
Come on people of the world... we can do better than this surely!!!
These men who moved to the side of freedom and humanity are my heros.
Linda, how do you know what these men whom you call "your heroes" plan for the future of Syria? For all you know, they could be Al Qaeda operatives themselves!!!
Mr. Husain.......there is NO Palestine, as you state in your article. I do agree, however, that the U. S. should stay out of Syria. That country has been a pain in the butt for many many years; don't believe me, ask Lebanon. I think the UN should tell the Russians and Chinese to keep their noses to their own business and let the Syrians just knock each other off...one less terrorist country to worry about.
The situation in Syria is going to be problematic for the rest of the civilized world in the fact that most of the nations who can intervene with force of arms,are weary from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.It would be political suicide for any of these statesmen to send their troops into harm's way so soon after bringing them home to their families.The Arab League should pool their resources and ask other nations to back them financially and logistically towards a final resolution of the crisis in Syria.
the west should help. after this world revolution blows over, we want to be known as the ones that helped.
Didn't Al Q just declare they are actively supporting the rebels in Syria in revolt against Assad? This means they are now allied with the rebels in which US/NATO is also allying with. So in the end, if regime change occurs, we will get a Muslim country with Sharia Law and Al Q will have great influence to promote their anti-western extremist agendas? Wouldn't that be worst than Assad's regime right now?