Finding a balance in Syria

For decades, the Achilles heel of American foreign policy has been the Middle East. Despite the myriad of approaches against complex issues, the results have often perplexed policy makers in Washington and laid the groundwork for unintended consequences. The current situation in Syria is no exception to this rule. 

As the fighting rages between Assad loyalist and ISIS fighters, the overwhelming question is “Why is the West incapable of helping to stop the bloodshed?” The best answer to this question is found in the cultural and political ideology of Arabs. In Middle Eastern political thought, any governmental institution can only rule if viewed as legitimate. This element of legitimacy is the crux of government, business and culture in the region. For years, the United States has failed to understand this concept and to work within its constructs to craft effective policy. 

{mosads}With Syria’s current state, the question of legitimacy is especially important since the aftermath of the Arab spring is still being decided. Western powers have limited options to bring to the table to deal with the conflict in Syria; however this does not mean all options are lost. Establishing some form of rule that is viewed as legitimate amongst the Syrian people is not a proposition well suited to external influence. The memory is still ingrained in many Arab minds of the European imperialism of years past. 

For policy makers, it comes down to two elements in determining a strategy in Syria. Balancing the necessity for legitimacy and the much more simplistic concept of practicality is the challenge facing policy makers. Herein lays the complexities of policy towards resolving the issue of Syria. 

Of the possible courses of action moving forward, many present very critical disadvantages that will not provide an instant end to the fighting. The most widely regarded of these policies is the use of military strikes to force a cease fire and leverage the outcome in a direction more desirable to US interests. This is perhaps the worst option on the table given the historical track record of such operations and the inherent compromise of legitimacy in the process. Military strikes are an option rooted purely in Western thinking and do not balance the other important variables for the desired outcome such as establishing legitimate succession of power, or retaining the structural foundations of governmental and social institutions.

The ideal solution moving forward is to broker a political deal with the Assad regime and the moderate elements of the resistance. This would provide both the legitimacy and the practicality needed to sustain whatever form of government would follow. However, with this option there are still challenges to overcome. The international community would have to bring the Assad regime to the table with enough leverage to use against the embattled president to usher a transition of power. Given the current state of affairs within Syria, the timing may be right to initiate such talks. 

If the international community could broker a deal with the Assad regime and the resistance, it would allow for a building of governmental institutions in Syria that are much more accepting of cultural and political freedoms based on legal precedents rather than purely authoritarianism.

Balancing the necessities for legitimacy and practicality has plagued US foreign policy for decades. This framework is not usually acclimated to bring about political expediency. As we see the fighting in Syria intensify, it is important that we explore options that not only brings about expeditious solutions, but one that clearly understands the long standing questions of the region.

Waters is a former U.S. Marine who holds a master’s degree in government with emphasis in Middle East politics from Regent University.