Foreign intervention in Syria would compromise popular uprising

Left alone, Syrians hopefully would continue the uprising to reach their goals. The revolutionaries in this strategic Arab country need to unite internally, and seek international moral support, not military assistance.
The current presence of the Arab League in Syria is of little value. This regional body has minimum credibility and capacity to manage conflict. Only Syrians can and should reform Syria. Through the process of reform, a new state will be built.
Concerned about Syria, a Washington-based reader recently wrote to me, saying that the Syria debate will trend toward whether the U.S. should contribute to, or lead the charge for establishment of some sort of a safe zone, similar to the one we provided to the Kurds in Iraq in the 1990s. Foreign intervention would drive the country into a full-fledged civil war, give President Bashar Assad's regime the excuse to continue the crackdown on dissent, alienate the undecided and invite destructive groups to fuel turmoil.
Avoiding external military aid is not easy. A revolt that started peacefully has been met with disproportional violence from the regime. The rebels continue to suffer in terms of life and property. Regrettably, Assad's oppression has driven the external wing of the opposition to seek help from the West, in particular Washington. But whose support in Washington are the rebels seeking?
Contacts are deepening between the international side of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council (SNC), and agents of the neoconservatives who pushed the U.S. to invade Iraq. On Dec. 20, the SNC appealed to the international community to create "safe zones for civilians" and for "prompt intervention to stop the massacre." A day later, the Foreign Policy Initiative sent an open letter to President Obama that called for "crippling sanctions" on Syria and support for the military capacity of the opposition.
The Foreign Policy Initiative, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies are lobbying for an aggressive U.S. role in Syria, in the name of freedom and protection of the dissidents. All three institutions have right-wing leanings and a hidden agenda: ensuring the passivity of a future Syrian regime on matters regarding Israel.
Targeting Iran is also part of the agenda. The neocons have been vigorously rationalizing a U.S.-Israel coordinated attack on Iran. These same advocates of "goodwill" are justifying the use of force to establish a no-fly zone in Syria.
So far, the Obama administration has not changed its policy of staying out of Syria. There is no appetite for new military missions. But things could change as the political vacuum in Syria widens and election pressure on President Obama mounts.
Marwa Daoudi is a visiting scholar at Woodrow Wilson's School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She cautioned against international intervention in Syria, her native country. She wants liberation through community-based resistance.
Ms. Daoudi explains her people's mind-set: "It is safe to say that the majority of the Syrian population has been appalled by the 'solutions' implemented in Iraq and Libya. American troops have finally withdrawn from Iraq, leaving several hundred thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties in their trail, a million refugees and a country in shambles and civil war. Libya is in turmoil, and the spoils of war remain a source of conflict between internal and external powers."
Ms. Daoudi expresses the aspirations of the Syrians who wish to achieve radical reform without exposing the country to external manipulation. She also ties the transformational quality of the revolution to the discipline of nonviolent resistance. Sobering lessons from Iraq should not be forgotten in dealing with Syria.
Note of publisher Palm Beach Post : Ghassan Michel Rubeiz, a winter resident of Palm Beach Gardens, has written for The Christian Science Monitor and the Arab-American News Services.