With or Without Us

The assumption that American intervention could mitigate Syria's carnage is flawed

By Fareed Zakaria Monday, May 13, 2013
    • Victor Breiner / AFP / Getty Images

    Syrians try to free a man trapped under the rubble following an air strike by government forces on April 7, 2013 that destroyed two five-storey apartment blocks and severely damaged ten buildings in a residential neighbourhood of the northern Syrian city of Aleppo, according to eyewitnesses.

    (2 of 2)

    Would U.S. intervention--no-fly zones, arms, aid to the opposition forces--make things better? It depends on what one means by better. It would certainly intensify the civil war. It would also make the regime of Bashar Assad more desperate. Perhaps Assad has already used chemical weapons; with his back against the wall, he might use them on a larger scale. As for external instability, Landis points out that if U.S. intervention tipped the balance against the Alawites, they might flee Syria into Lebanon, destabilizing that country for decades. Again, this pattern is not unprecedented. Large numbers on the losing side have fled wars in the Middle East, from Palestinians in 1948 to Iraq's Sunnis in the past decade.

    If the objective is actually to reduce the atrocities and minimize potential instability, the key will be a political settlement that gives each side an assurance that it has a place in the new Syria. That was never achieved in Iraq, which is why, despite U.S. troops and arms and influence, the situation turned into a violent free-for-all. If some kind of political pact can be reached, there's hope for Syria. If it cannot, U.S. assistance to the rebels or even direct military intervention won't change much: Syria will follow the pattern of Lebanon and Iraq--a long, bloody civil war. And America will be in the middle of it.

    TO READ MORE BY FAREED, GO TO time.com/zakaria

    3. 1
    4. 2
    5. Next Page