Regime Change in Syria?

The use of chemical weapons against civilians in Idlib, Syria, was an abhorrent gesture of disregard for human life, and the perpetrators deserve to be brought to justice. However, the attack—repugnant as it was—has not in any way changed the strategic calculus on the ground in Syria. Ramping up intervention in Syria beyond Thursday night’s cruise missile strikes remains a terrible idea, as further action will be very costly, could saddle the United States with the futile task of rebuilding another ravaged Middle Eastern country, and will leave the people of Syria worse off.

Governments must weigh their desire for justice against the likely consequences of their actions. This is extremely difficult because predicting the outcome of further intervention in Syria must take into account a vast number of variables. The calculation must consider the likelihood of long-term success in remodeling the war-ravaged country and the significant costs and consequences that any action will incur. These after effects are measured not just in the damage caused to Syria and its people, but also in the American lives that will inevitably be lost in any armed conflict.

The most obvious historical comparison is to Iraq. Saddam Hussein was an appalling leader who did untold harm to his people. But it is very difficult to argue that the people of Iraq are better off now, more than a decade since the United States invaded to improve their situation. The Iraq Body Count Project estimates that between 173,000 and 193,000 civilians have died from violence since the 2003 invasion. The country’s government and economy are in ruins, and the ungoverned spaces left in the wake of the war allowed extremist groups like ISIS to proliferate.

The cost to the United States has also been far from insignificant. Estimates vary on the economic price, but it is undoubtedly in the trillions of dollars. Much more important, more than 35,000 Americans have been killed or wounded in the misguided effort to reshape Iraq in America’s image. Any intervention, even with the noble goal of protecting civilians, must take this into account.

Even the “light footprint” approach to removing murderous leaders produces unintended consequences that far outweigh the benefits of effecting regime change in the Middle East. Few Americans lost their lives after airpower overthrew Moammar Gadhafi in Libya. But again, the Libyan people have been left worse off. Libya is embroiled in a multi-sided civil war with no end in sight, and as in Iraq, the greatest victims of this intervention have been innocent Libyan civilians.

When a murderous dictator demonstrates flagrant disregard for the lives and well-being of his citizens, it is only right that the American people are angry. But this anger should not lead the country to act without thought to the consequences of our actions. Leaders in Washington must instead consider the lessons of Iraq and Libya and should exercise some humility in thinking through what an intervention to overthrow Bashar al-Assad could achieve. History shows that even with the best of intentions, forced regime change in the Middle East typically brings only greater suffering.

Hugo Kirk is a research associate at the Charles Koch Institute.