On Syria and Turkey

The Arab League is starting to look west as they struggle to influence Assad in Syria, which means the world appears to be moving in the direction of escalation. I do not see military intervention in Syria in the short term, but do not dismiss it as a long term possibility.

One aspect of the Arab uprisings of 2011 that has caught my attention is the genuine interest by nations in the Arab world to attempt to take some responsibility for political problems within that region by leveraging the frameworks of established international institutions like the Arab League, United Nations, and in the case of Libya - NATO. I don't want to overstate that as an important event, even if it is important; because it is a relatively new development for a region that last century largely conducted foreign policy with leaders standing at a podium shouting threats and waving a gun.

Even a nuanced political change is change.

While I'll agree we are observing very weak data points, collective political action by regional partners through established institutions like the Arab League (and even African Union in Somalia to some extent) does suggest that international institutions are showing signs of gaining some strength in addressing some types of international political problems, even if the process is still incredibly ugly to watch and the success of action through those institutions is still yet to be determined.

The latest news regarding the Syrian uprising is that the Arab League is reaching out the UK and France for some guidance and leadership on ways to move forward effectively. What caught my attention was a Reuters report that some folks associated with Syrian politics believe that a Turkish military intervention would be received well in Syria. Part of me thinks this comes from the Middle Eastern School of Dick Chaney Diplomacy or perhaps even a Middle Eastern version of Sun Tzu that looks to others to do the dirty work, but I don't have the expertise and understanding regarding the internal politics of Syria to know if this is legitimate or not. Either way, it is worth consideration... here is the Reuters report:

A leader of Syria's outlawed Muslim Brotherhood said on Thursday the Syrian people would accept military intervention by Turkey, rather than Western countries, to protect them from President Bashar al-Assad's security forces.

Mohammad Riad Shaqfa, who lives in exile in Saudi Arabia, told a news conference in Istanbul the international community should isolate Assad's government to encourage people in their struggle to end more than four decades of Assad family rule.

Hundreds of people have been killed this month, one of the bloodiest periods in the revolt that began in March. The United Nations says more than 3,500 people have died in the unrest.

If Assad's government refused to halt its repression, Shaqfa said Turkish intervention would be acceptable.

I understand a lot of folks get immediately skeptical when they read "Muslim Brotherhood," but it is a fact of life that the Muslim Brotherhood is a political entity in the Middle East and North Africa that will have to be dealt with by the US directly on a diplomatic and political level for years to come - and all indications are that will be especially true for Egypt. While there are obviously differences, the Muslim Brotherhood of 2011 reminds me of the Ba'ath Party rise in the 60s. I have a feeling the US will take a similar political approach with the Muslim Brotherhood as we did with the Ba'ath Party - we don't like them, we don't trust them, and we'll find a way to work with them anyway.

Commentators and opinionators in the US seem to believe the US has full control over whether military action takes place against Syria. This New York Times Op-Ed, for example, contemplates military action against Syria and encourages the US to avoid military intervention. It is an interesting Op-Ed, but it reads like a political narrative from the first decade of the 21st century, not a narrative compatible with the adjustments guiding use of military power in the second decade of the 21st century. When discussing Syria and military intervention, there is only one key player who will decide when military intervention is necessary in Syria, and it isn't the United States, UK, or France - military action related to Syria begins and ends in Ankara.

For all the talk that trouble might break out between Turkey and Israel or Turkey and Greece or Turkey and Cyprus; for example, how flotilla's from Turkey might create an international political incident with Israel or how energy competition between Turkey and Cyprus could spark a conflict; all that heat has led to exactly zero smoke. Today, Turkey remains a strong ally of the US and one of our most important partners in the region. The news the US intends to set up BMD capabilities in Turkey suggests the political relationship between the US and Turkey is still being looked at in the context of long term commitments, not in the context of short term adjustments.

Because the relationship between the US and Turkey is and will remain strong long term, one question we should be asking is what happens when Turkey reaches a red line with Syria and Assad? It is still very possible that Turkey will approach NATO and say - this emerging Syrian civil war issue is a legitimate threat and we want NATO to help us intervene. Events in Syria could easily unfold in ways very similar to how events unfolded in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and if you recall, Bosnia and Herzegovina evolved from a UN political intervention into a NATO military intervention. With the Arab League and Turkey, it isn't impossible to see a similar scenario unfold regarding Syria.

As both France and the UK get more involved behind the scenes in helping the Syrian opposition movement, and as Turkey becomes more frustrated with the current Syrian government, a lot is yet to happen. While first steps in Syria do not appear to be military in nature, the militarization of policy can unfold over time, and events can unfold in predictable and unpredictable ways that can expedite the militarization of policy. One possible scenario that could emerge from the political fog is a limited Turkish led NATO military mission to deal with Syria, and that potential scenario alone suggests the US cannot rule out supporting military activities related to unfolding events in Syria. Calling for US military restraint is wise, but recognizing the potential for legitimate US support for military intervention in Syria is also wise.

I do not necessarily see Syria unfolding towards military intervention, but I also do not believe we have seen the last domino fall as it relates to the political uprisings that began earlier this year in the Middle East and North Africa. I also do not believe we have seen the last military intervention as a result of the ongoing unrest in the region.

The uprisings in Syria are starting to get more attention politically, and that uprising isn't going away anytime soon. Sanctions and other international pressures will only increase the stakes for the Assad government, which suggests to me the situation is approaching a policy change moment for the United States who in the words of some will assert power through the "lead" from behind model. Whether it's lead from behind or lead as part of a front, US leadership on the issue appears to be inevitable - but the US will "lead" only after Turkey asks us to.