Should the United States Intervene in Syria?

In the author's previous post on Syria, he explained the utilization of naval forces in establishing a no-fly zone over Syria and the costs associated with such an endeavor. Now, he will explain his opinion on intervention into the country.

America has strategic interests in Syria, of that there is no doubt. Not only does the collapse of Assad's regime knock out a major terrorist supporter in the Middle Eastern region, it also undermines Iranian influence in a time where the clerics in Tehran trying to establishing the groundwork for a hegemony in the Middle East. Moreover, the flood of terrorist groups into the country is cause for worry in policymakers. The last thing the United States wants is another Afghanistan, where non-state actors roam the countryside unopposed, giving them large swathes of area to organize, train, and plot attacks or even offensives in other countries. Therefore, we have an inherent interest to insure that order is restored and moderate militias within the Free Syrian Army take control of the nascent government.

However, policy should be constrained by harsh political, economic, and military realities. Having strategic interests doesn't mean that you should pursue them. Engaging in a conflict where your strategic goals are unobtainable is foolhardy, and often results in your own national security being further undermined.

At this point, the so-called golden opportunity for American intervention has passed. Extremist groups have seeped their way into the country, and are now providing a host of services to the local people, from food stores to security to governance. Had Obama gotten involved earlier, and provided arms to the more moderate groups, the presence of extremist groups could have largely been mitigated. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Initially, the U.S. used Qatar and Saudi Arabia as middlemen to supply weapons to the rebels. The C.I.A. has even been reported by the Economist to have helped ensure these transactions went smoothly. While this sounds beneficial, Qatar and Saudi Arabia both have goals in post-Assad Syria that are counter-intuitive to American interests. The majority of supply given to the rebels by the emirates are to extremist organizations.

That said, there is still potential for the West to gain the upper-hand. Salim Idris, Chief-of-Staff for the Free Syrian Army, has been outspoken about his wishes from the United States and her allies: first, he wants the establishment of a no-fly zone. Second, he wants more arms. Doing both drastically helps the moderates in the opposition. We could also go farther than that by training militias with moderate attitudes. Al-Nursa provides bread to the hungary masses? We give them meat. Giving moderates more provisions that help local populations greatly helps their image, thus undermining extremists.

So yes, the author believes that the United States should become more involved in helping rebels. At the very least, U.S. forces should supply weapons and copious amounts of food to vetted militias.