Why Britain is right to hold fire on Syria

In the final scenes of David Lean’s 1962 classic, Lawrence of Arabia, the Arab rebel fighters are wrapped up with internal, petty squabbles in Damascus as the great powers manoeuvre for the future of Syria.

Nearly a century after the events depicted in that film, there is a similar situation playing out in the Middle Eastern state.

Since the start of the Arab Spring, the international community has been shocked and angered by continuing violence. Much of it seems to be at the hands of the President Bashar al-Assad, and his removal has become a priority. Military intervention seems like the next step.

But, as we’ve found out with other Middle Eastern conflicts, we are dealing with a tremendously complex society; simplistic solutions by armchair generals won’t solve it. It’s imperative that the international community is not intoxicated by a perception of success in Libya, when the reality is that the formerly Gaddafi-controlled state is far from stable.

One problem with the argument for military intervention is that the concept itself is so very broad. Yes, it applies to airstrikes, as in Libya, but it can also apply to sponsoring unaccountable rebel groups on the ground - supplying arms and resources. And then there is the notion of a ground invasion as in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The opposition is united in little other than their hatred of al-Assad. US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, about issues that were restraining the United States from intervention. 

“It is not clear what constitutes the Syrian armed opposition – there has been no single unifying military alternative that can be recognized, appointed, or contacted,” he said.

But beyond military affairs, there is a practical question, and that is the effectiveness of armed intervention in installing effective, credible and stable governments.

The US academics Erica Chenoweth and Maria J Stephan claim that between 1900 and 2006, campaigns of nonviolent resistance were twice as effective as their violent counterparts (53 per cent compared to 26 per cent). Now, while situations in Egypt and Tunisia continue in limbo, the citizens were at least spared the footage of their former leader’s corpse being paraded. Would the West really want to see al-Assad meet the same end?

Certainly not, so diplomatic manoeuvres remain the order of the day, and with news emerging this week that Britain and the US are controversially offering President al-Assad "clemency" in return for him stepping down, it seems that things are getting desperate. This word is not quite appropriate because, unlike Gaddafi last year, the Syrian president has never been referred to the International Criminal Court – as many believe he should be after an estimated 15,000 deaths in 15 months. But trying this diplomatic initiative appears the only way escape the routine of daily violence.

So for now, the West have not exhausted all the diplomatic options. There is no question that the Syrian situation is critical, but out and out civil war is avoidable. The Coaltion of the Willing remain in Afghanistan and Iraq to prevent a return to such violence. Does anyone want to commit to ten years in Syria?