Libya, Syria: A Tale of Two Interventions

Source: The Huffington Post
45
INTERACTIONS

This week, Washington has been aflutter over the recent use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, and President Obama’s desired response-”limited military strikes”-to the incident. The Syrian conflict, which has lasted for over two years, has claimed approximately 110,000 lives.

Of all the unrest caused by the so-called “Arab Spring” in many Middle Eastern nations, the crisis in Syria is by far the deadliest and most destructive. And yet, it is not the first civil war in the region to have the potential military involvement of the United States. In 2011, the U.S. and other allies used limited air and missile strikes, plus a no-fly zone, to aid Libyan rebels in their struggle against Gaddafi. The situation in Syria is undoubtedly more complicated than that of Libya in 2011. At the same time, the response of U.S. voters to the American intervention in Libya may provide an interesting look at how involvement in Syria fares in the public eye.

To start, the sheer size of the conflict in Syria is far greater than in Libya. Ian Black of The Guardian wrote the following in January about the amount of fatalities in the Libyan conflict:

Libya’s new government has drastically reduced its estimate of the number of people who were killed in the revolution against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, concluding that 4,700 rebel supporters died and 2,100 are missing, with unconfirmed similar casualty figure on the other side.”

110,000 versus roughly 14,000. The war in Syria is characterized not only by the immense loss of life, but also by gargantuan amounts of refugees. The entire struggle is immensely complicated, and the United States’ chances of achieving its goals for intervention will be much lower than the prospects of success in Libya. As far as international support is concerned, the two situations are also very different. In March 2011, over one dozen coalition nations began the intervention in Libya. It is apparent that few of those nations have an appetite for a second intervention in Syria.

"The war in Syria is characterized not only by the immense loss of life, but also by gargantuan amounts of refugees. "
Additionally, the efforts to militarily intervene in Libya were not hampered by Russia or China. In June 2011, Kenneth Rapoza of Forbes wrote that “both have veto powers [in the United Nations Security Council], but opted to abstain from [Resolution 1973, which authorized "all necessary measures" to protect Libyan civilians].” But now, Russia is aggressively protecting the Assad regime, and as a result, U.S. military intervention in the conflict could hurt the already fragile U.S.-Russian relations.

Altogether, the Syrian conflict is far more complicated, far more heated, and far more dangerous than the Libyan civil war. NPR‘s Ari Schapiro identified several reasons “why Syria is more complicated than Libya”: Russia’s defense of Syria, the “uneasy mix” of religious groups in Syria, the high cost of post-intervention reconstruction, and the lack of clarity surrounding the purpose of American military action.

Schapiro’s final argument should be the one of most concern to the Obama administration, at least as American polls are concerned. Pew Research’s Center for the People & the Press conducted polls throughout the intervention in Libya. One thing that stands out is how respondents’ sense of a clear goal in Libya actually diminished as American military action continued. For example: in late March, 39% of Americans believed that the U.S. and its allies had a clear goal in Libya, and 50% disagreed. Then, in early April, the numbers were even worse: 30% of Americans saw a clear goal in the intervention, and 57% did not. One can only imagine the sort of negative numbers that would result from a U.S. intervention in Syria.

There are two lessons from Libya that Americans can apply to potential action in Syria. First, the struggle against Assad is far more complicated and risky than the struggle against Gaddafi. If it turns out that, yes, Assad undoubtedly used chemical weapons against his own people even when he had the upper hand, then what will he do when U.S. intervention threatens his prospects of winning the civil war? Second, unclear goals for intervention, or at least the appearance of fogginess, is deadly to domestic support. It may be the latter lesson from Libya, and not the former, that causes American policymakers to rethink the necessity of intervention in Syria.

The Independent Voter Network is dedicated to providing political analysis, unfiltered news, and rational commentary in an effort to elevate the level of our public discourse.


Learn More About IVN

Leave a Comment
4 comments
Alex Gauthier
Alex Gauthier

even with a comparatively more tenable situation like Libya the blowback from US involvement there resulted in a sacked embassy and US casualties. Unimaginable what could happen in the fray of Syria

Jane Susskind
Jane Susskind

This is a good approach to assessing whether or not intervention in Syria is a good idea.

One particularly interesting point -- "Respondents’ sense of a clear goal in Libya actually diminished as American military action continued." If over half of Americans are opposed to intervention in Syria right now, I can only imagine what this number will drop to throughout any intervention..

Charlotte Dean
Charlotte Dean

We're jumping into a massive void with an obscured bottom...a leap of faith. At this point one must weigh the consequences of action with the consequences of inaction: since neither is at all predictable in the current state, we will have to make a gut decision on the lesser of two evils, as well as educate extensively about the plan itself.

Carl Wicklander
Carl Wicklander

You can probably expect it to plummet once the first dead American hits the ground (assuming an American intervention would get that far).