A Syrian child asked me during a Skype call with her father: “When are you coming to stop this noise and smoke?” I thought she meant me, so I started explaining how difficult it was for me to fly to Syria, but she pinned me down with a clear cut explanation: “I meant your soldiers!” The line was disconnected immediately and I learnt later, to my relief, it was her father who ended the call. The 10-year-old girl's question echos across the Arab world. How much more killing and destruction can we tolerate before we decide to interfere militarily? The Turks are facing this question right now, as their government engages in a cross-border artillery response to last week's Syrian shelling. Is it safe and legitimate for neighbors to support people against their own government? And if we accept the principle, are we obliged to wait for the authorization of the United Nations, knowing that Russia and China would block it? Do we have better or safer options? These questions are not facing the Turks, or Syria's other neighbors, alone. We, in the wider Arab world, are struggling with them everyday. We have tried political pressure. We have tried economic pressure. We have even tried military pressure by supporting the Free Army, but it has not changed the mind of the Syrian regime, or toppled it or stopped its killing machine. Meanwhile, thousands escape daily to neighboring Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. The increasing pressure on these countries is taking a toll on their economy and security. How much longer can they afford to accommodate their needy guests, considering that most of Syria's neighbors are poor themselves and have security challenges of their own? Turkey is the only country now who has a legitimate cause to send its army across the border. The Syrians have activated their Kurdish allies, as they have always done in times like this, and tens of Turkish soldiers have already lost their lives to the attack of Kurdish rebels. The Syrians have shot down Turkish airplanes and fired artillery on Turkish towns and military posts. This is a call for war, and NATO is obliged to support a member under attack, if it choses to respond and take measures in self defense. Can Turkey do it on its own? On paper, it could. The Russian-equipped and distracted Syrian army is no match for the bigger, and better equipped and trained NATO army of Turkey. Unless Syrians used chemical weapons, Turkey would certainly win any face-to-face battle. If Turkish forces coordinated well with the Free Army, they might also have the upper hand in urban warfare, as well. NATO should not appear in the picture. They may help in less obvious ways, like providing intelligence, communication and logistics. Others could help, too. Gulf states, for example, could financially support operations. Israel, however, should stay away - totally! It is still regarded as the enemy of Arabs - except the Assad regime which secretly kept dealing and wheeling with the Israelis while pretending to be at war with them. Is it going to be an easy war? No. But it won't be like the US invasion of Iraq, either. Especially, if plans are well designed for the day after the fall of the Assad regime. Will Syria's friends stand aside while their ally is being invaded? Russia, Iran and China will not accept such intervention. The first two will probably increase their military involvement. Iran's allies, Iraq and Hezbollah, may go overboard in their support of the Syrian regime. Politically, the three countries would use the UN to condemn the Turkish invasion. Will the episode trigger Word War III? Hardly. Russia today is not the Soviet Union of the 1960s, Syria is not Castro's Cuba, and there is no nuclear threat. What if Arab armies were to join in or take over military operations? That would be much less threatening and provocative to Syria's allies than a NATO involvement. It would even be more legitimate and easier on Russians and company if the initiative were modeled after the Arab forces, led by Syrians, that were authorized to end the Lebanese Civil War in the 1970s, and then stayed on as peace keepers for over a decade after. So, should we invade Syria? I would say, yes. If this conflict continues as is, it may turn into an ugly civil war later. The opposition groups are not united and a coherent transitional government is not guaranteed. Extremist forces are already in place. The army, dismissed or not, will not be helpful. Then, we would have to deal with a 40-year-old entrenched system and structure which would be difficult to integrate or dissolve. Syria needs a wise and just external force to enforce law and order and to lead a smooth transition to the new age. Such a force is also needed to guarantee the safety and security of minorities, especially the Alawites. Those who committed crimes against the Syrian people, regardless of their ethnic and religious background, should be tried in the court of law. Their families and communities, however, should not be touched. Collective punishment is un-Islamic, inhuman and unjust. Sectarian and ethnic reprisal must be prevented at any cost. – Dr. Khaled Batarfi is a Saudi writer based in Jeddah. He can be reached at: [email protected] Follow him on Twitter: @Kbatarfi
