With the missile attack on chemical weapons facilities in
Syria, the U.S., along with Britain and France this time, slapped a new coat of
paint on the “red line,” apparently crossed again by the Assad regime. Moved by
pictures of civilians suffering in agony following the chemical attack,
President Trump called Bashir al-Assad an “animal” and warned that American missiles
would fly – which they did.
The only trouble with the red line, first laid down by
President Obama, is that it was not only late, but painted in the wrong place. While
there was a lot of talk about how the civilized world could not tolerate the
use of chemical weapons, especially against civilians, it had tolerated seven
years in which conventional military assaults, including shelling, attacks from
the air, and the use of the less-conventional but horrendous barrel bombs, were
perpetrated on Syrian civilians.
Mr. Assad, an ophthalmologist by training, was initially seen
as somewhat progressive after coming to power in Syria. He had a distinctly
distorted view, however, of what were mostly peaceful protests during the Arab
spring. Convinced they were the work of terrorists planning to overthrow him,
he unleashed his military on city populations in his country. Cable news
covered all this night after night. CNN had two brave female reporters in the
thick of things, while panelists like the late Fouad Ajami wondered how long
the West would put up with Assad’s atrocities.
Two years later, President Obama wanted to do something
about it following news of a chemical attack, drawing the red line in the sand.
Along came the Russians, who said they would make their ally Assad give up his
chemical weapons. But he remained in power, and conventional atrocities
continued, with the assistance of the Russians, who convinced us they were also
helping to fight ISIS.
But the internal civil war raged on in Syria. Hundreds of
thousands died, millions more were displaced, many of them drowning as
overburdened refugee boats crossed the Mediterranean. The hordes arrived in a
largely unwelcoming Europe, though Germany agree to take in a million survivors,
while we virtually shut our doors.
OK. After Iraq and Afghanistan, we were war-weary, and Syria
was so not our problem. But “not our problem” makes it everyone’s problem. Were
we complicit in this tragedy by doing nothing? We insist we are not in favor of
regime change, but if any situation calls for it, it’s this one. It’s a real
pipe dream on my part, but could we work with the other players in the region
to help rebuild Syria after Assad is removed?
The boundaries of Syria, Iraq and a few other countries in
the Middle East were drawn by two men, one English and one French, after World
War I. They did it armed with a map and rulers. I hope the world can somehow do
better by this region going forward, pipe-dreamy as that may sound.
