The Obama administration plans for a post-Assad Syria.
Over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the Obama administration has embarked on contingency planning if and when Bashar Assad is run out of town (or up a lamp post):
Even with fighting raging in Syria and President Bashar al-Assad digging in, the State Department and Pentagon are quietly sharpening plans to cope with a flood of refugees, help maintain basic health and municipal services, restart a shattered economy and avoid a security vacuum in the wake of Mr. Assadâ??s fall, administration officials say....Even though the White House has all but ruled out military intervention, the Pentagon is drafting contingency plans for operations with NATO or regional allies to manage a large flow of refugees over Syriaâ??s borders and safeguard the countryâ??s arsenal of chemical weapons.
The administrationâ??s efforts have been driven by a bleak prognosis shared by most officials: Mr. Assadâ??s fall would be likely to set off a grave, potentially violent and unpredictable implosion in a country strained by even more tribal, ethnic and sectarian divisions than Iraq, possibly in the midst of a presidential election campaign at home.
On the one hand, this is the eminently sensible thing to do. The U.S. may have very limited leverage over what happens inside Syria, but it can try to mitigate the regional fallout as best it can. On the other hand, it is also a somewhat surreal exercise, as the Times continues:
â??What we donâ??t want to do is descend into the total chaos that Iraq did,â? said Ms. Jouejati, who is participating in a similar planning effort among Syrian activists coordinated through the United States Institute of Peace, an independent but Congressionally financed organization in Washington. Even so, she added, â??I donâ??t think we want the United States to impose lessons learned here.â?
Exactly. Does the U.S. really have any credibility when it comes to patching up societies riven by multi-ethnic and sectarian clashes? Why does the administration think its plans are going to survive contact with a post-Assad Syria, especially when it won't have the ability to implement or enforce them inside the country? There's a strong case to be made that the U.S. should be actively monitoring and trying to interdict some of the more potent weapons of the Assad regime, but wading into the political arena is a bridge too far.
