The situation in Syria presents many difficulties. How do we deal with this civil war?
Should we bomb or send aid? How do we keep from getting entangled in the fighting?
Well, I had an idea and wanted to flesh it out. In the process, I came to the conclusion that
I cannot support military action. Instead, I came up with a different plan.
I sent this to my U.S. senators and representative. I sent a shorter version to the White
House. Making my ideas known to our nation's leaders could help them temper their
actions so that the citizens of Syria can be better enabled to reform, rebuild, restructure,
and renew their government in a more rational manner than war affords.
A “carrot only” approach to dealing with the Syrian civil war is the best approach
toward the final goal of ending Syria’s civil war. “Carrot only” may not be the best
descriptive phrase for a policy, but it will do for the purposes of explaining my concept.
This proposal features incentives for those who would build-up and rebuild and
disincentives for those who destroy and deter. It is much more comprehensive and
farsighted than a “stick” plan — specifically, the limited 60- to 90-day intervention being
considered by Congress.
Bashar al-Assad use of chemical weapons is horrific and also illegal by any
international standard. However, trying to destroy these weapons or their delivery systems
will not result in a positive outcome. In order to completely destroy the actual chemical
within these weapons sufficient heat needs to be present. The only device sufficient to
provide this heat is a small nuclear weapon; the U.S., indeed most countries, would not
approve. Using other conventional devices presents a high chance of producing a cloud of
toxic gas, which will indiscriminately injure and kill within the area downwind of the
explosion. Since some chemical weapons will remain intact, the Syrian government will
find a way to deploy them regardless of the state of their delivery systems, so destroying
equipment (“capability”) will not work.
Justification for military action by using the “punishment” argument is at best a
self-serving, emotional response and is equally ineffective. Only non-combatants will
suffer. Syria’s leaders will only make sure that “collateral” damage is maximized. Not only
will the innocent suffer, but infrastructure ruin — possibly greater than is already occurring
— will result in the need for more copious funding after the war for rebuilding.
A strong argument against military action by the U.S. and its coalition is made in the
Wonkblog of The Washington Post (written by Ezra Klein, published on August 31). The
author cites research supporting his argument that intervening militarily results in a
significant increase in civilian (non-combatant) deaths. The “stick” of retributive military
action is not the way to reply to the horrific acts of the al-Assad regime and to help bring an
effective end to the civil war.
The greatest resource in waging war is people — not (among other resources)
weapons, infrastructure, ancillary equipment, or food. The best way to end war is to starve
it of its most important element, whether it be fighters, support personnel, or human
shields. Therefore, I propose that we depopulate Syria.
How do we do this? Already, over three million people have left Syria as a result of the
war; many of them are now part of a ring of refugees in surrounding countries. Most do not
have a desire to be soldiers in this conflict. These refugees form the foundation for creating
a new Syria after the war ends — but only if we treat them with care and respect to mitigate
adding more combatants to the mix.
These refugees need money, sufficient housing, water, food and, as important, jobs.
These refugees need positive motivation and support to keep them from reentering Syria
as combatants. Currently, as reported by the BBC in an interview a few days ago with a
U.N. refugee-aid official, only forty percent of money pledged as refugee aid has
materialized. Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and even Iran are bearing a heavy burden and
are unable to properly care for the needs listed above.
Rather than spending money on a fruitless act of war, the U.S. and the world
community should spend that money to encourage the population of Syria to leave the
country. It should spend the money on housing, short-term food and monetary aid, and a
more long-term project to find temporary jobs for these refugees — whether those jobs be
in the surrounding countries or elsewhere in the world — in part by using the U.N. develop
funds and NGOs. The world community may have to spend a good deal of cash to make this
happen, but I believe that the amount spent will be less than that spent on military action.
And I believe that the more prosperous Arab countries (and maybe even Russia and China)
would welcome this and provide concrete support, both with personnel and with funds.
As proposed in an amendment to the Senate authorization bill, a long-term plan for
reconstruction, rehabilitation, and the rebuilding of Syria is essential to the success of any
action by the U.S., the U.N., or for that matter any country. A depopulation/repopulation
plan for Syrian, by nature, includes this type of planning.
Depopulating Syria quickly, by providing strong incentives for non-combatants to
leave and then caring for them in a humane and respectful manner, could very well end the
war more quickly than intervening with military force. A country with a population of only
warring groups can be declared a “failed state.” One can look at some of the more recent
changes in Somalia — establishment of relatively peaceful city-based, self-governing
territories, organizing refugees into groups that have started to resettle in areas of the
country — for possible positive examples of a depopulated country that has started to
rebuild itself. We need to empower the ordinary people of Syria who are not warriors.
Please vote to spend our money on the Syrian citizens who matter, on rehabilitating
the country, and restoring the people of Syria to their communities, accompanied by a
well-funded plan to rebuild the country. Vote for the people and against war. It’s the right
thing to do.
