Why isn’t Canada Intervening in Syria?

Canadian military helicopters landing in Afghanistan. via.

While the Americans consider enhanced support of Syrian rebel forces by supplying new military resources, Canada’s position on the troubled middle-eastern nation remains uncertain. Beyond some humanitarian aid, the Canadian government has been hesitant to pledge armed support, or even increase our acceptance of Syrian refugees—including those with close Canadian relatives. It seems that the extent of the Canadian action plan, when it comes to Syria, is to not take much action whatsoever.

That didn’t stop the House of Commons from holding an emergency debate on the Syrian crisis last Monday, in light of reports Assad forces allegedly used the deadly nerve-agent, Sarin gas, in a chemical attack on rebels. The debate came at the request of Bob Rae, the Liberal Party foreign affairs critic. He urged the Conservatives to consider improved measures helping Syrian refugees, but stopped short of proposing military intervention. Unsurprisingly no new initiatives came out of the debates. No shock there. Especially when Foreign affairs minister John Baird says he’s suspicious of backing rebels who may be involved with radical jihadists, and some would say Al Qaeda.

Terrorist links or not, the rebels in Syria aren’t so much different from western-backed Libyan fighters of two years ago when Canada and other NATO nations enforced a no-fly zone on the Gaddafi regime. That air support markedly favoured rebels, which ultimately turned the tide of the war and led to Gaddafi’s infamous downfall. And like their Libyan counterparts, Syrian rebels are from a country whose regime was in Bush’s original Axis of Evil, they’re mostly Sunni Muslims, and brutally ruled by an oligarchic family with a questionable human rights record. So what gives, Canadian government?

The reality is, the fallout from toppling the Gaddafi regime is not only still fresh for NATO countries (beyond the millions in expenses) it almost certainly informs their decision to not yet similarly intervene in Syria. While the hangover from the Benghazi attack continues to be a thorn in Obama’s side—from Republicans like the pro-Syrian-interventionist John McCain—it also highlights the volatility of the post-Gaddafi Libyan political landscape. Not to mention, the war in Mali was partially spurred by Gaddafi-armed Tuareg fighters returning to their country with their new war-toys in hand, courtesy of the deposed dictator.   The fall of the Assad regime risks similar weapons proliferation and Assad has a chemical arsenal some fear militants could obtain. Recent reports state that Free Syrian Army rebels are defecting to the Islamist group Jabhat al-Nusra likely doesn’t quell those fears either. Yet as Louay Sakka, a co-founder of the Syrian Support Group based in Washington told the Globe and Mail: “If you don’t fund moderate groups it plays into the hands of radicals. Whereas those nefarious groups have organized networks funding and arming militants, it could leave them as the de facto power against Assad in the absence of an alternative, credible and more moderate force the West needs to back.”

Syria is also located in an equally fragile region as Libya, one comprised of proxy powers and rival states. An escalation in the war could spill the conflict across regional borders. Then again, the lack of intervention seems to be leading to the exact same outcome. Predominantly Shiite-Iran backs the Alawite Assad regime, along with Hezbollah in Lebanon, while Israel sits nearby in a tenuous position.

To further complicate matters, the recent car bombing in a Turkish town along the Syrian border, which Turkey claims was done with the aid of Assad forces, risks dragging that country into the conflict. Luckily the Turks have said they won’t retaliate just yet, as it appears they, like other countries, are exhausting all diplomatic possibilities before formally entering the Syrian conflict as combatants. Yet when the chemical weapons line has been crossed, from a humanitarian perspective, the West should be very concerned if Assad forces are openly committing war crimes, and should respond in kind.

In Canada, hesitance to intervene may entirely stem from fears of a Libya-repeat or maybe we’re just being cheap: our government has been slashing internal departments and cutting back on spending—even to the military—for years now. Either way, their limited intervention speaks to the Canadian government’s recent, minimalist, performances in foreign conflicts. After all, they only gave France a cargo plane in the insurgent war in Mali.

In the end the Harper government may sit back, continue supplying supplemental humanitarian aid, and allow larger more invested nations like the US do all of the military heavy-lifting—unless pressure comes via Washington to tag along in a NATO mission. That being said, by staying firmly against intervention, the Conservatives may be trying to avoid the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conundrum other western nations seem to be wrestling with ever since the two-year-old Syrian conflict began.

Follow Ben on Twitter @BMakuch

Want more coverage of the war in Syria?

The Syria Issue

Speaking with an Alleged Member of the SEA about Hacking The Onion's Twitter Account

Chatting about ‘Game of Throne’ with Syria’s most Feared Islamic Militants