On Wednesday, Syrian National Council head Abdulbaset Sieda invoked Libya when calling for international intervention to topple the regime of President Bashar Assad. He may not have realized the extent to which, after last weeks attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya weighs heavily on American minds. The chaos that prevails almost a year after the overthrow of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi allowed a radical Islamist militia to operate unmolested and use a demonstration over an Islam-bashing film made in California as an opportunity to attack and kill Americans. So, despite the escalating brutality in Syria, a repeat of the Libya model is unlikely to get many takers in Washington. No one outside Tehran and Moscow wants to bolster Bashar al-Assad, but the images of infuriated young men in Egypt, Libya and Yemen have given outsiders greater pause about Syrias fragmented, radicalized and increasingly well-armed opposition, noted Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group risk-management firm. That conflict will drag on without intervention by outsiders for some time to come.
Yet, in the Hague, another meeting of the Friends of Syria group of Western and Arab backers of the rebellion ended on Wednesday. They made plans to escalate the slow-burning sanctions that are doing little to change the regimes course, even as they constrict Syrians ability to make ends meet. The group vowed to meet again before the end of 2012, but set no date. Even before last weeks tragedy in Libya, Syrias plight was simply not near the top of the to-do list of Western leaders, partly as a result of more pressing priorities and partly because they see no good options for effecting a positive outcome.
The Syrian conflict pits a predominantly Sunni rebellion against a regime based on an Alawite security core with a measure of support from Christians and other minorities, as well as a declining share of the Sunni elite (numerous exceptions notwithstanding). From the outside, at least, it is beginning to look more like the civil war that broke out in Lebanon in the late 1970s than the rebellions of Tunisia and Egypt. Mindful of the regional consequences of picking a side in such a civil war, and of the danger of being sucked in with no exit strategy, Western powers are, if anything, growing increasingly reluctant to intervene directly.
Syrias opposition remains deeply divided. The armed rebellion remains disorganized, with dozens of rival militias fighting under autonomous commanders. The growing influence of both Syrian and foreign jihadists among the armed formations reinforces the Wests hesitance. Indeed, even the U.S. that hoped, together with France, Turkey and Qatar, to anoint the Syrian National Council as a government-in-waiting, has been forced to distance itself from the group in light of its limited authority over revolutionaries on the ground.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, whose new envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has been meeting with stakeholders across the region in recent weeks, pointedly warned this week that there could be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. But as Bans last envoy, Kofi Annan, found, neither the opposition nor the regime, nor the foreign backers of either side, appears to be ready to embrace that reality. Assad hopes to blast his way out of trouble, while the rebels appear to believe that even if they lack the military capacity to topple the regime themselves, putting up enough of a fight will eventually prompt Western powers to intervene, as in Libya, to destroy the regimes fighting capacity.