Weighing in on the ongoing mess in Syria, 92-year-old former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger chimed on President Barack Obama’s “regime change” policy in Syria. “The destruction of ISIS is more urgent than the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who has already lost over half of the area he once controlled. Making sure that this territory does not become a permanent terrorist have must have precedence,” said Kissinger. Since the Syrian civil war began March 11, 2011, the White House has sided with Saudi Arabia funding a Sunni proxy war against al-Assad’s minority Alawite Shiite regime. Like former President George W. Bush who overthrew Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein April 10, 2003, Obama also believes that Iraq and Syria can set up power-sharing arrangements with Sunnis and Shiites. Kissinger knows integrating Shiites and Sunnis didn’t work in Iraq and won’t work in Syria.
Obama’s Syrian policy was built off his single-minded campaign promise to end the Iraq and Afghan wars, not a sober assessment on the ground of what’s necessary to maintain stability. Obama decided to pull the plug on Iraq once former Prime Minister Nouri al-Malki refused to give the U.S. military an immunity agreement for continued presence. Al-Maliki played all sides against the middle, telling the White House he wanted U.S. forces out, while, simultaneous, ceding power to the Taliban. Evicted from Kabul, Afghanistan Nov. 12, 2001, the Taliban retreated to fight a guerrilla war. Announcing Oct. 15 that he’d keep troops in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, Obama’s admitting that the Taliban could eventually topple the U.S.-backed government of Ashraf Ghani. Taking down Taliban’s Mullah Mohammed Omar or Iraq’s Saddam Hussein didn’t democratize either country.
Kissinger hoped to prioritize Obama’s foreign policy when it comes to dealing with ISIS. Like his Vietnam War days while running the State Department for President Richard M. Nixon, Kissinger still shows the kind of nuanced ambiguity that made him an icon of U.S. foreign policy. Kissinger condemns al-Assad but points out that he’s preferred over what would follow should the Saudis get their way toppling his Shiite government. What the White House refuses to see is that the Saudi effort to topple al-Assad stems from age-old sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Shiites. Obama blamed the failure in Iraq on al-Maliki’s inability to bring enough Sunnis into Iraq’s new Shiite-dominated government. Sunnis in Iraq and Syria want no part of their Shiite brothers with whom they have little respect over their Islamic faith. Obama’s bought the Kissinger idea of joining Shiites and Sunnis.
Kissinger wants to see a major U.S. diplomatic effort to “bind regional ground combat forces to a military campaign that would [in conjunction with coalition air forces] sweep ISIS from Syria, permit establishment of a recognizable Syria government . . .” creating a new federal force in Syria. Insisting the Syria should be “re-conquered either by moderate Sunni forces or outside powers,” smacks of the same failed Saudi-backed proxy war strategy, killing 250,000 and driving millions more into exile. Kissinger criticized the Obama administration for doing too little. “It’s too hard to do,” and “the regional power won’t do it,” said Kissinger. Kissinger adheres to the fantasy of a “federal structure” to “be built between Alawite and Sunni portions,” not recognizing the undeniable truth that the Saudi-backed Wahhabi insurgency aims to wipe out al-Assad’s Alawite Shiite minority.
Kissinger’s fantasy becomes clinical when he insists a Syrian federal structure “a context will exist for the role of Mr. Assad, which reduced the risks of genocide or chaos leading to terrorist triumph. Like the old days, Kissinger speaks in enough veiled generalities to buffalo true believers in his non-sense. No successful Wahabbi insurgency would concede any role to al-Assad other death by hanging or firing squad. Kissinger’s fears of genocide for al-Assad’s Shiite sect would be all but certain should Wahhabi groups, with U.S. backing, get their way. Kissinger mentions nothing of Obama’s backing the same groups that attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11 or currently hold outlaw power in Iraq and Syria. Unwilling to admit the obvious, Kissinger won’t acknowledge that Russian President Vladimir Putin has the situation sized up correctly: That toppling al-Assad would hand ISIS Damascus.
Kissinger’s belief that there’s a place for al-Assad in a newly configured Syrian regime is utter rubbish. All Wahhabi anti-Damascus rebel groups have the goal of toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Kissinger points out the al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons and barrel-bombing during the four-and-a-half-year insurgency destroyed his legitimacy as a leader. Gaining Russian and Iran’s full support forced Obama to reconsider his regime-change position, realizing that Putin really does fear the same kind of anarchy following any successful overthrow of al-Assad’s Alawite, minority Shiite regime. Faced with a well-funded Saudi Wahhabi insurgency, al-Assad has done everything possible to stay in power, including using illicit chemical and conventional weapons. Kissinger’s ideas didn’t work in Vietnam and certainly wouldn’t work in Iraq and Syria.
