Mid-level U.S. diplomats say Assad must be toppled in order to defeat ISIS

Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks in Damascus on June 7. Removing Assad from power has been a U,S, objective even before the rise of ISIS. (SANA via AP)

It is hard to believe it would improve matters in Syria, but 51 mid-level U.S. diplomats are urging a campaign of airstrikes against President Bashar al-Assad. In the draft of a memo sent through the State Department’s “dissent channel” and leaked to the New York Times last week, the diplomats protested the Obama administration’s policy in Syria and argued that regime change is the only effective way to defeat the Islamic State, or ISIS.

Regime change has been the goal of American policy in Syria even before ISIS became a concern. The New York Times reported last year that the CIA has trained 10,000 fighters to combat the regime, at an annual cost of up to $1 billion. Early in the five-year-old civil war, the U.S. demanded that Assad vacate office, but that was always going to be a non-starter at the negotiating table.

Advertisement

After its emergence in Iraq and Syria, ISIS replaced the Assad regime as the main target of U.S. military efforts. The Islamic State has experienced significant reverses since the United States began a bombing campaign, in some cases losing territory, but this is a long way from saying that it is on the skids. At least the narrative of ISIS going from success to success has been checked by local forces and bombing by both the United States and Russia. Yet because it has been directed at an array of Syrian rebels, not only members of ISIS, Russian bombing has shored up Assad’s forces to the point where he is now talking about reclaiming lost territory.

Assad’s stronger position clearly motivated the diplomats’ secret memo, which calls for airstrikes to force Assad to negotiate a settlement and urges further training of moderate Syrian rebels. But efforts by the Pentagon in 2015 to find “moderate” rebels to fight against the Islamic State proved an embarrassing failure, with U.S.-trained forces turning over ammunition  and trucks to an Al Qaeda affiliate. In October, the Obama administration ended the $500 million program after less than a year, acknowledging that only a handful of the trained fighters had ever gotten onto the battlefield. Another effort to enlist moderates in the fight against ISIS was authorized early this year, but The Los Angeles Times reported on March 27 that CIA-funded rebels and Pentagon-funded rebels were battling each other on the plains between the city of Aleppo and the Turkish border, “highlighting how little control U.S. intelligence officers and military planners have over the groups they have financed and trained.”

Patrick Cockburn, a Mideast correspondent for The Independent, describes Western efforts to look for the proverbial good guys in Syria as “an act of fantasy.” Not all Assad opponents are Islamists, but all of the armed Assad opponents are, Cockburn says in an interview this month in The Nation, and the most extreme Islamists have been the most successful on the battlefield. Apart from the Kurdish area in northeastern Syria, Cockburn says, in most places opposition rebels are as bad as, if not worse than the Assad regime.

There’s no question U.S. policy in Syria has been feckless, riven by contradiction, and ineffectual. Undoubtedly, the diplomats’ memo expresses their frustration at the horrific costs of a civil war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and is fueling the biggest refugee crisis since World War II. But will their own strategy be better? Is it a change, or simply a more lethal version of what the United States is already doing? The assumption seems to be that if a little force doesn’t work, more force will. That kind of thinking led to open-ended escalation in the Vietnam War, when the United States dropped more than twice the amount of bombs as it used in World War II. The diplomats’ memo also acknowledges, but then shrugs off, the risks of conflict with Russia and Iran that U.S. airstrikes could create.

What the diplomats’ memo never addresses is what will happen if and when the goal of toppling Assad is achieved. Will Syria be more peaceful? Unlikely. With Assad gone, one can expect an all-out war between extremist factions seeking power, among them the Islamic State.

Predictably, Saudi Arabia, a major backer of the rebels in Syria, swiftly embraced the dissenting diplomats’ memo. Visiting Washington last week, Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir praised the memo and said Saudi Arabia has long urged a no-fly zone, as well as a safe haven and further arms for the Syrian rebels, including surface-to-air missiles.

But the Saudi Arabian response, like that of the 51 U.S. diplomats who signed last week’s memo, appears to be an expression of the problem that afflicts Syria, not a solution to it. What has made the Syrian war so intractable and bloody is the intervention of foreign governments in the civil war: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and the United States on the side of the rebels; and Russia and Iran on the side of the Assad regime. Until the foreign governments sponsoring the war are ready to either stop funding it or work out an acceptable resolution, the war will continue. Adding more fuel to the fire in Syria with U.S. air strikes is unlikely to do anything but increase the devastation.

That so many U.S. diplomats are suggesting more military action, not diplomacy, may simply signal the extent to which militarism has pervaded our government, including the State Department, and become the U.S. default response to every conflict. But will an aggressive, illegal and unprovoked U.S. war on Syria be any more successful than the wars the United States has waged in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, or the war that it is helping Saudi Arabia wage in Yemen? Have our strategists and diplomats become more creative, far-seeing and nimble? The memo suggests not.

 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Vincent Gaglione
2 years 4 months ago
I listened on NPR this morning to a description of the plight of refugees from Iraq and Syria who now have borders being closed to them even by Jordan. Realizing that the nations of the world are literally refusing refugees and offering no relief aid for the alleviation of their suffering, we are witnessing the equivalent of a genocide of peoples from those nations. And I asked myself this morning, what avenues of redress are there then to end the creation of even more suffering for such people? Perhaps that's what motivates those State Department members who signed the petition. Do I want another war. NO. Do I want the exponential increase in the suffering of these innocent people. NO. If you have a better PRACTICAL suggestion (the foreign powers will not leave the area), then provide it, but I think your implied criticism of these men and women may be excessive under the circumstances.
Gabriel Marcella
2 years 4 months ago
Let's not so easily dismiss the importance of the dissent by 51 mid level diplomats. That's a considerable slice of the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs. Moreover, it's an act of moral fortitude which we should respect. Dissents are rare, averaging 4 per year. Former Ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford, states in Daily Beast: "In response to the State Department dissent memo signed by 51 officials who have worked on Syria in recent years, the White House probably won’t change its approach to the broad Syrian conflict. After nearly two years of American military operations in Syria, after an estimated 400,000 or more dead in Syria, and after Syrian refugee flows have raised questions about European unity itself—the unity that was a goal of American foreign policy dating back to Truman—the memo is right to urge we review how can we achieve secure our strategic objective in Syria. The discussion is all the more urgent since there are no sure-fire solutions and no options without risks." The author of this column states: 'That so many U.S. diplomats are suggesting more military action, not diplomacy, may simply signal the extent to which militarism has pervaded our government, including the State Department, and become the U.S. default response to every conflict.' Unfortunately, diplomacy without the support of force in such a conflict is an illusion. It is naive to believe that Assad and the other actors in the Syrian conflict will sit down and resolve their differences through the exchange of words.

Advertisement

The latest from america

 10.17.2018 Pope Francis greets Cardinal Blase J. Cupich of Chicago before a session of the Synod of Bishops on young people, the faith and vocational discernment at the Vatican Oct. 16. (CNS photo/Vatican Media)
“We take people where they are, walking with them, moving forward,” Cardinal Blase Cupich said.
Michael J. O’LoughlinOctober 20, 2018
Catherine Pakaluk, who currently teaches at the Catholic University of America and holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, describes her tweet to Mr. Macron as “spirited” and “playful.”
Emma Winters October 19, 2018
A new proposal from the Department of Homeland Security could make it much more difficult for legal immigrants to get green cards in the United States. But even before its implementation, the proposal has led immigrants to avoid receiving public benefits.
J.D. Long-GarcíaOctober 19, 2018
 Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, then nuncio to the United States, and then-Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, are seen in a combination photo during the beatification Mass of Blessed Miriam Teresa Demjanovich at the Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart in Newark, N.J., Oct. 4, 2014. (CNS photo/Gregory A. Shemitz)
In this third letter Archbishop Viganò no longer insists, as he did so forcefully in his first letter, that the restrictions that he claimed Benedict XVI had imposed on Archbishop McCarrick—one he alleges that Pope Francis later lifted—can be understood as “sanctions.”
Gerard O’ConnellOctober 19, 2018