“Let’s face facts: The Syrian civil war is not going to burn itself out, barring some kind of greater military intervention or outright victory by Assad’s forces. Don’t listen to armchair analysts predicting a radical redrawing of borders, or the deep-sixing of Sykes-Picot. Borders, especially the haphazardly drawn ones in the Middle East, are stickier than we tend to presume. Yet, no-fly zones are not the antidote, whether to the security or the humanitarian problem we face in Syria. They neither resolve the conflict nor alleviate the suffering of civilians. Instead, they emerge as a type of ‘satisficing’ that policymakers like less to change the balance of power on the ground, and more to score domestic political points. They neither signal strength to our adversaries nor sympathy for the victims they purportedly are meant to protect. Instead, they put interveners in an indefinite holding pattern, one followed by either retreat, or mission creep (or worse, a drip-drip-drip of military and financial resources). Calling for a no-fly zone in Syria is a not a courageous demonstration of resolve for presidential candidates, nor is it evidence of a humanitarian strategy. It is evidence of parroting the Washington ‘playbook’ handed them by advisors who prefer to punt on Syria and refuse to put forth creative solutions.”
Under my Umbrella: The No-Fly Zone Fallacy” (Lionel Beehner, War on the Rocks) Free Subscript.
“Let’s face facts: The Syrian civil war is not going to burn itself out, barring some kind of greater military intervention or outright victory by Assad’s forces. Don’t listen to armchair analysts predicting a radical redrawing of borders, or the deep-sixing of Sykes-Picot. Borders, especially the haphazardly drawn ones in the Middle East, are stickier than we tend to presume. Yet, no-fly zones are not the antidote, whether to the security or the humanitarian problem we face in Syria. They neither resolve the conflict nor alleviate the suffering of civilians. Instead, they emerge as a type of ‘satisficing’ that policymakers like less to change the balance of power on the ground, and more to score domestic political points. They neither signal strength to our adversaries nor sympathy for the victims they purportedly are meant to protect. Instead, they put interveners in an indefinite holding pattern, one followed by either retreat, or mission creep (or worse, a drip-drip-drip of military and financial resources). Calling for a no-fly zone in Syria is a not a courageous demonstration of resolve for presidential candidates, nor is it evidence of a humanitarian strategy. It is evidence of parroting the Washington ‘playbook’ handed them by advisors who prefer to punt on Syria and refuse to put forth creative solutions.”
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
May 2024
Categories |