Pompeo’s strategy for Syria must address these critical questions

Mike Pompeo has already shown he means business with a secret visit to North Korea. He has made clear that he will enter the State Department with a welcome commitment to reinvigorate U.S. diplomacy. Few issues will require more imagination and determination that the Syrian crisis.

Supporters and opponents of the recent U.S.-led air strikes in Syria have stressed their limited nature. Both agree that “bombing is not a strategy.” But the question for those of us concerned about the consequences of the Syrian war for humanitarian suffering, regional destabilization, European politics and geopolitical balance of power is what such a strategy should contain. 

{mosads}The abiding sin of Western engagement, and lack of it, since the Syrian civil war began has been a failure to align ends and means. “Assad must go” lost its meaning when he didn’t. Thirty-five alleged uses of chemical weapons, 500,000 deaths, and over 5 million refugees later, there remains confusion about purpose, goals and tactics. Strategy needs to fill that vacuum.

It is obvious that with each passing year the development of such a strategy has become more complicated. The Syrian war is no longer between the people and the government. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran are battling for regional power; terrorist groups are looking to secure a foothold; Russia and the US are squaring off. There are different wars between different groups in different parts of the country.

In ascending order of difficulty, here are the questions that need to be answered to put a strategy together. 

First, what is the plan to support the neighbors of Syria hosting the lion’s share of the country’s refugees? In Jordan, the government has increased the cost of healthcare for refugees fivefold in order to stay within the limits of its IMF plan. These neighboring states are the front line and aid is an essential part of stability and diplomacy.

This week’s Brussels conference on the future of Syria is an immediate opportunity for the West to commit much-needed support for neighboring states. Meanwhile, the U.S. has admitted fewer Syrian refugees in this fiscal year than were killed in the Douma chemical weapons attack. Every time the West takes in a refugee, it sends a political message that reverberates beyond the family that receives the help. The cuts in refugee entry need to be reversed.  

Second, what is the plan to build a viable peace in the North and Northeast of the country, currently under the control of primarily Kurdish groups? President Trump said he wanted to withdraw U.S. troops, but this is a recipe for renewed conflict. Military power created an area free of ISIS control and of Syrian government troops — it is now waiting for an investment and reconstruction plan.

Third, what is the plan to engage NATO-member Turkey? At the moment, Turkey is focused on fighting the Kurds, but engaged in a diplomatic dance in Astana with Russia and Iran to the exclusion of the UN and the West. With the threads of the Astana process fraying, there is an opportunity for Pompeo to re-engage the Turks bilaterally, and link them back into a reinvigorated UN-led Geneva process that is the only hope of achieving an inclusive political agreement. The State Department needs to get back to work.

Fourth, is there a willingness to limit or prevent the abominable slaughter of the 3.5 million civilians in Idlib and Dara’a? Both fear “siege, starve and surrender” by Assad and his allies. The only question is, which area comes first?

Trump has hinted he will not tolerate the continued use of chemical weapons. These hints need to become real deterrence. But conventional weapons, including barrel bombs, are also a menace, and when aimed at civilians are contrary to international humanitarian law. At a minimum the idea proposed by the French of establishing a UN accountability mechanism, if necessary through the General Assembly rather than the Security Council, should be taken up. At the moment, impunity reigns. 

The fifth question is the hardest: How much do we care? Unless this question is answered it is impossible to gauge the priority, resources and sacrifice required for the first four.

What we know from the last seven years is that there is no progress on the cheap. President Putin decided that saving Assad was worth a big investment. The West needs to decide whether saving Syria’s civilians is sufficiently important to exact a price on those who threaten them, to dissuade that behavior and incentivize an alternative approach. 

This price need not only be military. Economic, political and diplomatic muscle flows from a determination that staunching the bloodshed in Syria is a priority. That determination is where Pompeo must start.  

David Miliband is the president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee, a humanitarian advocacy organization, which assisted more than 1 million people in Syria in 2017. Miliband is also the former foreign secretary for the United Kingdom.