As the violence in Syria intensifies and the world community takes steps to peacefully force President Bashar al-Assad to step down, we must stand back and reflect on what the United States' goal in Syria should be. It is the responsibility of world leadership in Syria not solely to facilitate the peaceful transition of power, but also to establish a stable, democratically elected government. In order to achieve this end, the United States and Europe must show restraint in using force but must still provide diplomatic and economic support for the opposition movement.
The Responsibility to Protect principle, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, states that sovereignty includes the responsibility to protect one's citizens from harm. When a state fails to uphold this obligation, it becomes the responsibility of the international community to intervene, thus necessitating the ousting of the Assad regime.
The United States cannot afford to continue to be viewed by the peoples of the world, and especially the peoples of the Middle East, as two-faced. In addition, the recent endorsement by Al-Qaeda of the movement in Syria illustrates the need for the Western democracies to moderate the movement so that it does not lose its legitimacy as a people's movement and become a terrorist action. There is no doubt that the situations in the various countries of the region require different strategies to bring about democratic reform but nonetheless, when presented with an opportunity particularly when supported by the Arab League the United States and Europe must act.
Although the veto by Russia and China in the Security Council does provide an obstacle to involvement, there are still options available to the United States and Europe. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377, also known as the "Uniting for Peace" principle, allows the General Assembly to take up any issue involving a disturbance of peace or violence that the Security Council, through the use of the veto by a permanent member, fails to act upon. Furthermore, Russia and China's main qualms about intervention are that the Western powers would overextend a mandate, such as they did in Libya, and employ force to oust Assad. To assuage this concern, the United States and Europe need to continue to make clear that it is not in their interest or in the interest of the Syrian people or the opposition movement for the Western world to employ force in Syria.
If the United States' long history of foreign involvement has shown us anything, it is that once troops are sent into action, it becomes extremely difficult for them to leave. Local populations may initially welcome foreign troops as the deliverers of freedom, but the problems of policing inevitably turn public opinion and convert foreign troops from liberators to occupiers. Therefore, though we must provide sustained and aggressive assistance to the Syrian people as they seek to liberate themselves from Assad's rule, we must exercise restraint in sending troops. The United States must support the opposition movement both by pressuring Assad diplomatically and economically, as well as by providing the rebels with direct economic and diplomatic aid. The restraint to use ground forces also has a significant impact on the end-game strategy. If ground forces were used, any uprising would seem more like a foreign imposition than a truly Syrian movement. This would undermine the legitimacy of a new government and would only lead to more instability and violence. Therefore, any intervention must not go beyond supplying and supporting opposition forces, as the movement must be viewed as wholly Syrian.
The United States, however, must take strong and definitive action in Syria. Sovereignty is a privilege, not a right. It is the responsibility of the international community to aid these nascent opposition movements that aim to free themselves from oppressive and violent regimes. However, the difficulty the United States has had establishing stable democracy after forcing regime change in the past has taught us that these movements must be carried out by the domestic populations. Although the international community may aid and encourage these efforts, ultimately movements toward democratization must be indicative of domestic desires and free from foreign imposition that could cause domestic illegitimacy.
