This post is in response to a discussion on NPR today regarding the escalating violence in Syria: http://www.npr.org/2012/03/14/148617389/commentators-consider-solutions-in-syria
I'm very upset with Anne Marie Slaughter's suggestion that "safe havens" for civilians caught in the midst of the conflict. First, a sidenote: I'm absolutely thrilled that I remember who Slaughter is from my grad school reading list. I can absorb lotsa information, but usually I'm bad at connecting famous academics and the ideas they espouse. So I'm very proud of my recall here. And I liked what she said about sanctions, but she's out of her mind with this "safe haven" idea. It sounds reasonable on paper; in an asymmetrical war with a ragtag group of rebels, rebels are mixed into the civilian population, so the Syrian government can justify massacring civilians by claiming that they are harboring or actually are militants. No longer are armies facing each other on a hill, clearly fighting under different flags. If you sequester civilians into demilitarized safe havens, guarded by an international peacekeeping force, theoretically you protect them by removing the argument that they are militants themselves, and of course they are further physically protected by the peacekeeping troops (oxymoron?).
The problem with this neato idea-on-paper is that it doesn't work. It basically just creates a refugee camps of sitting ducks. The most horrific example of this is the Srebrenica genocide during the Bosnian war in 1995. When Milosevic's goons rolled up to this "safe area," Dutch troops stood aside and allowed them to round and massacre every man and boy in the haven. It's easy to blame the peacekeepers, but what can be done in this situation? They were tasked with protecting the Bosniaks, but did they have the authority to engage and embroil the Dutch ground war in order to stop the genocide? When they were outgunned anyway? It's an impossible situation, and the bad guys will always find an excuse to roll in. They can always claim that the peacekeepers aren't doing their jobs and are in fact harboring militants. I'm sure the rules of engagement are more refined in peacekeeping situations now than they were 17 years ago, but this is an unbelievably terrible idea.
In the NPR piece, ironically Paul Wolfowitz is the one who advocates a sensible position: arm the rebels and provide air cover. It's not perfect, but it allows the people to fight for democracy themselves and sends the message that the world is watching. It worked in Libya.
Daniel Serwer, the last commentator, offers a political approach rather than a military solution. He advocates convincing Russia to stop supporting the Assad regime. I think this is an excellent approach, but diplomacy is probably too slow in this situation. It should supplement rather than supplant military action.
So this is a bunch of sad, bad news about violence and civil war, but what's somewhat heartening is that most of the world is on board with protecting civilians. It was not long ago that any intervention in internal conflicts was wildly controversial. Norms have changed. Massacring your own people is no longer acceptable. Maybe actions don't always follow words, but Arab nations are largely on the side of the rebels, rather than screaming at the US and other lesser superpowers to stay out and stop being so goddamn imperialist. The world is dirty and violent and tragic, but maybe it's getting a little better.
I'm very upset with Anne Marie Slaughter's suggestion that "safe havens" for civilians caught in the midst of the conflict. First, a sidenote: I'm absolutely thrilled that I remember who Slaughter is from my grad school reading list. I can absorb lotsa information, but usually I'm bad at connecting famous academics and the ideas they espouse. So I'm very proud of my recall here. And I liked what she said about sanctions, but she's out of her mind with this "safe haven" idea. It sounds reasonable on paper; in an asymmetrical war with a ragtag group of rebels, rebels are mixed into the civilian population, so the Syrian government can justify massacring civilians by claiming that they are harboring or actually are militants. No longer are armies facing each other on a hill, clearly fighting under different flags. If you sequester civilians into demilitarized safe havens, guarded by an international peacekeeping force, theoretically you protect them by removing the argument that they are militants themselves, and of course they are further physically protected by the peacekeeping troops (oxymoron?).
The problem with this neato idea-on-paper is that it doesn't work. It basically just creates a refugee camps of sitting ducks. The most horrific example of this is the Srebrenica genocide during the Bosnian war in 1995. When Milosevic's goons rolled up to this "safe area," Dutch troops stood aside and allowed them to round and massacre every man and boy in the haven. It's easy to blame the peacekeepers, but what can be done in this situation? They were tasked with protecting the Bosniaks, but did they have the authority to engage and embroil the Dutch ground war in order to stop the genocide? When they were outgunned anyway? It's an impossible situation, and the bad guys will always find an excuse to roll in. They can always claim that the peacekeepers aren't doing their jobs and are in fact harboring militants. I'm sure the rules of engagement are more refined in peacekeeping situations now than they were 17 years ago, but this is an unbelievably terrible idea.
In the NPR piece, ironically Paul Wolfowitz is the one who advocates a sensible position: arm the rebels and provide air cover. It's not perfect, but it allows the people to fight for democracy themselves and sends the message that the world is watching. It worked in Libya.
Daniel Serwer, the last commentator, offers a political approach rather than a military solution. He advocates convincing Russia to stop supporting the Assad regime. I think this is an excellent approach, but diplomacy is probably too slow in this situation. It should supplement rather than supplant military action.
So this is a bunch of sad, bad news about violence and civil war, but what's somewhat heartening is that most of the world is on board with protecting civilians. It was not long ago that any intervention in internal conflicts was wildly controversial. Norms have changed. Massacring your own people is no longer acceptable. Maybe actions don't always follow words, but Arab nations are largely on the side of the rebels, rather than screaming at the US and other lesser superpowers to stay out and stop being so goddamn imperialist. The world is dirty and violent and tragic, but maybe it's getting a little better.
