海角大神

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton鈥檚 confirmation that a no-fly zone is one of the options the United States is considering to address Syria鈥檚 unabated bloodshed does not mean such a step is imminent.

In fact, it may have been uttered with the hope of making the need for such a leap to deeper American intervention in Syria鈥檚 civil war less likely.

Secretary Clinton 鈥渕ay have intended this as a final shot across the bow to Russia鈥� and other powers supporting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, to say 鈥渨e鈥檙e trying to avoid something you鈥檇 be very unhappy about,鈥� says Michael O鈥橦anlon, a national security and defense policy specialist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. And that 鈥渟omething鈥� Clinton may have been signaling, he adds, is that 鈥渨ith or without the United Nations, we are going to be getting more involved in this [conflict] if Assad remains in power鈥� with outside help of his own and the war drags on.

Clinton spoke of a possible no-fly zone and other options for assisting Syria鈥檚 rebels in their fight to oust Assad after her meeting in Istanbul Saturday with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutaglu. Clinton said she and Mr. Davutaglu agreed that a no-fly zone and other assistance the rebels are seeking from Western powers 鈥渘eed greater in-depth analysis,鈥� adding that 鈥測ou cannot make reasoned decisions without doing intense analysis and operational planning.鈥�

Translation: Any decision is not for tomorrow. But just the mention of a possible no-fly zone suggests the West may be moving closer to the kind of military intervention it undertook in Libya last year on the side of rebels opposed to Muammar Qaddafi 鈥� and which Russia has bitterly criticized.

NATO鈥檚 intervention in Libya followed UN Security Council action that the West took as a green light. That is why some international security analysts say any US-backed military involvement in Syria at this point would more closely resemble Western intervention in the Balkans in the 1990鈥檚, which followed UN paralysis on the conflict.

In 1999 the US and NATO undertook a bombing campaign in the Kosovo war 鈥� without UN authorization 鈥� that eventually turned the conflict in the rebels鈥� favor.

But to this day the UN and NATO have peacekeeping forces in Kosovo, regional experts note 鈥� a reminder, in case Clinton and other Western officials needed one, that military interventions are not always easy to end. (The Western intervention in Libya stretched on longer that NATO anticipated but nevertheless ended in a matter of months, some pro-intervention analysts point out.)

Clinton has a long list of factors to consider in 鈥渁nalyzing鈥� the no-fly zone option, Brookings鈥檚 Mr. O鈥橦anlon says, and one of them is how opening the door to military intervention could lead to deeper involvement.

鈥淵ou have to consider the slippery-slope phenomenon,鈥� he says, 鈥渉ow this could evolve from a no-fly zone to a no-go zone鈥� as the Libya intervention did. 鈥淚f no-fly fails to stop Assad鈥檚 attacks,鈥� O鈥橦anlon adds, 鈥渢hen there鈥檚 a lot of pressure to strike at Syrian tanks and artillery.鈥�

The West鈥檚 deepening intervention in Libya did not prompt more than protests from Russia and other anti-interventionist powers because those powers鈥� interests in the Qaddafi regime鈥檚 survival was not so great. But the US, already worried about the potential for the Syria conflict to balloon into a proxy war for dueling regional interests, is well aware that Russia, Iran, and others are unlikely to sit back (and indeed are already intervening) as the West jumps in.

After the US completes its 鈥渋n-depth analysis,鈥� another factor determining whether or when to intervene will be the US presidential campaign.

President Obama would like to avoid deeper involvement in Syria, but if staying out becomes impossible then he will want military intervention to look like a last resort, says O鈥橦anlon, who has studied Obama鈥檚 use of the military. The president鈥檚 鈥渃onscience鈥� could eventually prompt a decision to deepen US involvement, he says, but nothing suggests that would happen in a hasty manner.

鈥淚f he can鈥檛 altogether avoid it, he at least wants to maintain a perception that he鈥檚 essentially a reluctant warrior,鈥� he says.

The situation might be different if Obama didn鈥檛 have his use of drones to attack the Al Qaeda leadership, the taking out of Osama bin Laden, his 鈥渟urge鈥� of troops in Afghanistan, and Libya under his belt. But O鈥橦anlon says those actions leave Obama confident enough of his record that he doesn鈥檛 feel compelled to intervene in Syria for intervention鈥檚 sake.

鈥淚f he鈥檇 never used military force maybe he would act differently on Syria,鈥� he says, 鈥渂ut I think at this point he feels he can afford to look at all the ramifications, and maintain a perception that he鈥檚 the somewhat less interventionist and more cooperation鈥搈inded of the two candidates.鈥�