The Case for Arming Syrian Rebels

Source: Getty
Op-Ed Wall Street Journal
The United States should arm carefully chosen Syrian rebel groups to expedite the fall of Syrian regime and prevent Iran from using the region as its main conduit for shipping weapons to terrorist groups that attack Israel and other U.S. allies.
Related Media and Tools

Wars are ugly. They are deadly. They have unintended consequences and spillover effects. And yet, sometimes, putting a thumb on the scales of war is the lesser evil. Sometimes, dealing in arms is the right thing to do.

Arming the rebels of Syria is such a cause. But don't take my word for it. As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, revealed this month in Senate testimony, they backed a plan last year to arm carefully vetted Syrian rebels. The plan was also backed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus. They were vetoed by a White House that sees itself as tough and realistic—but is instead being myopic.

Why arm Syrian rebels? Let's start with Iran. The faster Syrian dictator Bashar Assad falls, the faster Iran loses its closest ally in the region and its main conduit for shipping weapons to terrorist groups that attack Israel and other U.S. allies. A Syria without Assad will further isolate Iran and could help force it to the nuclear negotiating table.

Second, the war in Syria is destabilizing an already volatile region. Armed conflict has spilled into Iraq and Turkey. Refugees are creating tension in Jordan, Lebanon and other neighboring states. Syria's chemical weapons are hard to track—and the longer the civil war rages, the greater the risk that Assad will use them on his own people, or that they end up in the hands of terrorists.

Meanwhile, the rebels aren't waiting for Washington to decide. They are getting arms where they can—often from private individuals and Gulf countries that support the most radical Islamists within the rebel factions.

In other words, the longer we stand aside, the more power radical Sunni factions and rebel groups engaging in war crimes gain over more secular and nationalist groups. The latter are disgusted with our inaction. We will have few friends in Syria, a crucial country in a bad neighborhood, when this bloodletting—60,000 men, women and children killed so far—is over.

I respect the Obama administration's security credentials, and am glad that this White House heralds a tougher brand of liberalism, one that recognizes the necessity of national security and is comfortable with force.

But in this case, the realists are not realistic. The young people spearheading the Arab Spring are trying to decide what America stands for—whether it cares about their human rights and empowerment or is merely seeking cheap global oil and easy alliances. Inaction in Syria is not good for the U.S. in a region where more than 60% of the population is under age 30. America can lose this generation for the next 50 years if it is not on their side now.

Deciding how to intervene in Syria is by no means easy. In 2011 the U.S. and its NATO allies intervened in Libya, failed to secure weapons caches—and newly armed Islamists struck in Mali. Many of the insurgents in Syria are connected with radical Islamists, and the U.S. must be careful not to arm them (though they are growing stronger through our inaction). When Assad falls there will likely be bloody conflicts afterward between rebel and ethnic groups—bloodshed that may be exacerbated by our weapons.

To do the most good, we would need to arm carefully chosen groups. Luckily, we have had intelligence assets on the ground for nearly a year vetting such groups to determine the most worthwhile options.

We should choose arms that are of the most use militarily and the least in civilian killing. This should include antitank weaponry calibrated to pierce lower-grade Syrian armor, not higher-level Israeli, NATO, and U.S. tanks. And we should be willing to provide the additional military support to ensure that those arms are used well. Half-measures can be worse than no action at all.

Many will protest that this more robust option leaves the U.S. owning a conflict it does not want to own. I agree that we don't want to own this conflict. Yet in the eyes of the Arab street, America already does. Many in the region believe that by doing nothing, the strongest country in the world has cynically chosen the current outcome: Assad in power and civilians in body bags.

I'm glad to see a new breed of tough Democrat. But the Obama administration's "realism" is creating a ticking time bomb in a region that is already spinning ever so slowly out of control.

This piece was originally published in the Wall Street Journal.

End of document

About the Democracy and Rule of Law Program

The Carnegie Democracy and Rule of Law Program rigorously examines the global state of democracy and the rule of law and international efforts to support their advance.


Comments (2)

  • kamran
    1 Recommend
    Afghanistan is the best example for western countries when it comes to distribution of arms to rebels. It makes the situation worst & not the solution of the problem. Arming the rebels can lead to another wave of talibinisation but this time in the heart of middle east. Long term consequences are harsh.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel
  • walterasgbenjamin
    1 Recommend
    I agree totally with this brilliant article - which I would like to resume by this sentence: "Many in the region believe that by doing nothing, the strongest country in the world has cynically chosen the current outcome: Assad in power and civilians in body bags."

    It is also important to have in mind many of the contradictions involved in this civil war: first inside Syria it is a fight between a minority in power and a majority which is not in power. Then if the majority wins the power , it will be in its interest to keep the unity of the country and not to take revenge but simply to establish an international court justice to give herself more credibility.
    Second Bashar Assad is still today in power because Russia and Iran support him. When Bashar Assad will be ousted , it will reinforce the political movements in Iran and in Russia against their own dictators - also against some other dictators in Middle East ( Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia,and in Asia ( China, etc)

    And probably the most important for President Obama, it will reinforce the Peace Process between Palestinians and Israeli because it will weak Hezbollahs, rightists Israelis, rightists Lebanese, Jordanese,... It will be a chance to create like an European Union including Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan which will allows to solve the Palestinian refugees situation and allow Israel to get peace and security in the framework of a multi-secular states organization.

    This conflict is like the civil war in Spain in 1936-39. The non intervention of France and of England to oppose Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy was a disaster which made possible the Second World War.

    To give a chance to a World Peace - with more democratic countries - included in Iran, Russia and China - it is absolutely vital to help the Syrian Opposition.

    Mao Tse Toung said you couldn't make an omelet without to break eggs - you could establish a more just and balance Syrian state and a chance of peace in the Middle east without to fight for it.

    Other ways it is quite sure that we will go to a disaster much more important than the WWII because it will reinforce the feeling of these dictatorships than they could win.
    Reply to this post

    Close Panel

Stay in the Know

Enter your email address to receive the latest Carnegie analysis in your inbox!

Personal Information
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20036-2103 Phone: 202 483 7600 Fax: 202 483 1840
Please note...

You are leaving the website for the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy and entering a website for another of Carnegie's global centers.