The only moral position countries can take on the Syrian civil war is neutrality. You should and perhaps must help the civilian casualties in any way you can, you should welcome them, aid them, and pressure your governments to accommodate them. But your country cannot take any sides in the conflict and claim any moral high ground.
Syria is a conflict where there are no good guys. The Internet is rife with think tank secretions trying to sell the case that the Assad regime is the only bad guy there, using the cheap fallacy that those who refuse to believe that the opposition is any better are "supporting a brutal dictator." One would think after the experience of 2003 this kind of argument wouldn't sell any more. On the other hand, some are truly of the belief that the Assad regime is a lesser of two evils when the other side are genocidal medieval slave traders like ISIL. Neither argument is valid, and neither captures the complexity of the perceived "bad guy", nor does either acknowledge the obvious grotesqueness of both sides.
Syria is beyond a normal civil war. It is a civil war where one side, the Assad regime has voluntarily decided to retreat into a coastal enclave, de facto enforcing a partition of the country it once ruled. It is also a war where the "opposition" consists mostly of religious fanatics who enjoy some support among the populace who want to transform the rest of the country into a medieval theme park, while trying to ethnically cleanse the coastal strip from its native Alawites. It's a sectarian civil war with roots that extend decades or even centuries. Contrary to popular belief, this, not the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the regional conflict with ancient roots.
On its own though the situation might have been resolvable. But outside intervention made sure this is no longer possible. Iranian and Russian pure unadulterated self interests made them support the Assad plan for an Alawite state. They made the insane plan logistically possible, they supported him financially, militarily, and diplomatically. It is unclear to me whether either is remorseful about the impact of this on the rest of Syria, but what's obvious is that this is not deterring them.
Meanwhile, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have made sure that the interior of Syria is so thoroughly Afghanized, that there is no foreseeable future for it. And Saudi Arabia in particular, drunk on its illusory victory in Yemen, and shocked by its newfound sense of national and sectarian pride, will continue to fragment and arm the interior of Syria till we are all sure that will continue to resemble scenes from "The Road" for decades if not centuries.
There is an argument one can make though that is uncomfortably morally relativistic and very reminiscent of neo conservatives. One can claim that it is more moral to just support either side till they win and impose some form of order that will reduce the suffering of the normal people, even if the resulting regime isn't ideal from our point of view. The problem is, this isn't even possible. Russian intervention in Syria should have resulted in a tangible turning of tides in favor of the regime. And it hasn't, Syria is still a set of bloody stalemates and tactical advances and losses. Neither has the Saudi spending hysteria managed to form any tangible opposition that could be aided. The Syrian opposition will and is fighting among itself perhaps more than fighting against the regime.
Intervention always proves to be a bad idea. In Afghanistan I thought it was rightful, it turned out badly. In Iraq I thought it was horrible, it turned out badly. In Libya I thought it was OK, it turned out badly. In Syria a lot of people thought it was moral, it just made it infinitely worse. More intervention doesn't solve the problems of intervention, it adds to them. The moral thing on Syria is to support neither side, explicitly or tacitly, and to provide as much help to the normal Syrians trying to escape the hell they and us created.
Syria is a conflict where there are no good guys. The Internet is rife with think tank secretions trying to sell the case that the Assad regime is the only bad guy there, using the cheap fallacy that those who refuse to believe that the opposition is any better are "supporting a brutal dictator." One would think after the experience of 2003 this kind of argument wouldn't sell any more. On the other hand, some are truly of the belief that the Assad regime is a lesser of two evils when the other side are genocidal medieval slave traders like ISIL. Neither argument is valid, and neither captures the complexity of the perceived "bad guy", nor does either acknowledge the obvious grotesqueness of both sides.
Syria is beyond a normal civil war. It is a civil war where one side, the Assad regime has voluntarily decided to retreat into a coastal enclave, de facto enforcing a partition of the country it once ruled. It is also a war where the "opposition" consists mostly of religious fanatics who enjoy some support among the populace who want to transform the rest of the country into a medieval theme park, while trying to ethnically cleanse the coastal strip from its native Alawites. It's a sectarian civil war with roots that extend decades or even centuries. Contrary to popular belief, this, not the Israeli Palestinian conflict is the regional conflict with ancient roots.
On its own though the situation might have been resolvable. But outside intervention made sure this is no longer possible. Iranian and Russian pure unadulterated self interests made them support the Assad plan for an Alawite state. They made the insane plan logistically possible, they supported him financially, militarily, and diplomatically. It is unclear to me whether either is remorseful about the impact of this on the rest of Syria, but what's obvious is that this is not deterring them.
Meanwhile, Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia have made sure that the interior of Syria is so thoroughly Afghanized, that there is no foreseeable future for it. And Saudi Arabia in particular, drunk on its illusory victory in Yemen, and shocked by its newfound sense of national and sectarian pride, will continue to fragment and arm the interior of Syria till we are all sure that will continue to resemble scenes from "The Road" for decades if not centuries.
There is an argument one can make though that is uncomfortably morally relativistic and very reminiscent of neo conservatives. One can claim that it is more moral to just support either side till they win and impose some form of order that will reduce the suffering of the normal people, even if the resulting regime isn't ideal from our point of view. The problem is, this isn't even possible. Russian intervention in Syria should have resulted in a tangible turning of tides in favor of the regime. And it hasn't, Syria is still a set of bloody stalemates and tactical advances and losses. Neither has the Saudi spending hysteria managed to form any tangible opposition that could be aided. The Syrian opposition will and is fighting among itself perhaps more than fighting against the regime.
Intervention always proves to be a bad idea. In Afghanistan I thought it was rightful, it turned out badly. In Iraq I thought it was horrible, it turned out badly. In Libya I thought it was OK, it turned out badly. In Syria a lot of people thought it was moral, it just made it infinitely worse. More intervention doesn't solve the problems of intervention, it adds to them. The moral thing on Syria is to support neither side, explicitly or tacitly, and to provide as much help to the normal Syrians trying to escape the hell they and us created.
