The following editorial appeared recently in the Los Angeles Times:
Syria's bloody turmoil, as offensive to Americans' sense of justice and freedom as it is harmful to our national interest, is a problem that seems to defy solutions. Pundits, politicians and foreign policy experts call for a renewed focus on diplomacy and planning for a transition to democracy, yet as the black smoke drifts over Damascus and the United Nations spins its wheels, it's hard to see either approach making much headway. Perhaps it's time to consider other options.
On Thursday, Russia and China vetoed — for the third time — a Security Council resolution that would have led to sanctions against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad if it continues to violate a U.N. peace plan. Sanctions can be an effective foreign policy tool, and the international community should keep trying to impose them, but it's an uphill battle in Syria; Russian financial and strategic interests are closely tied to Assad's regime, and for Moscow to back down now would be highly uncharacteristic.
The latest diplomatic failure comes on the heels of the clearest sign yet that Assad is losing his grip on power. Wednesday's bombing in the Syrian capital did more than kill three high-ranking regime officials (one of them reported to be Assad's brother-in-law); it conclusively demonstrated that the nation's security apparatus is not invulnerable, a psychological victory that will further empower and embolden the rebels.
Syria is in a state of civil war that is in part a struggle by a disenfranchised majority against a brutal and autocratic regime, and in part a sectarian conflict between Sunni Muslims and the minority Alawite population that runs the country. Assad, an Alawite, is of course the main focus of tensions, but this is a conflict that might not end peacefully even if he were to step down. The Alawites and their allies fear not only the loss of power that would result from a Sunni takeover, but a threat to their lives and livelihoods as a people they have long oppressed takes control. Such transition to majority rule is, and should be, the goal of the international community. Yet unless some way of protecting the minority population and ensuring it isn't shut out of future government participation can be devised, and be backed up by international force and guarantees, the killing could go on in Syria for some time to come. That means further destabilization of the Middle East, a prospect very much against American interests.
Perhaps this sectarian issue gets less attention than it deserves because, in a black-and-white sense, the Alawites are the bad guys. Why should the international community focus on protecting them? The answer involves a combination of justice and practicality: Violent reprisals are seldom a just response to past oppression, and without further guarantees, it's hard to envision a peaceful end to this conflict.