Syria's Brutal Crackdown:  A Sticky Wicket

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright February 19, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

           Bashar al-Assad’s crackdown against anti-regime rebels continues unabated, since monitors from the Arab League condemned Aug. 27, 2011 Syria’s relentless attacks on civilians.  Thousands have been massacred by the 38-year-old Assad’s pro-regime militia, vowing to purge the country of subversives.  Assad faces the same unknown forces that toppled Tunisan President Zine-al Abidine Ben Ali’s government Jan. 14, 2011, ended the 30-year reign of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak Feb. 11 and only a few months later ended the 40-year rule of Moammar Ghadaffi.    While the U.S. and Western powers seek pro-Democracy regimes in the Middle East, popular uprisings often end up in radicals’ hands.  Educated in Syria and trained in the U.K. as an ophthalmologist, Assad is no pushover when it comes to preserving the rule of his late father Hafez al-Assad’s, post-WW II regime.

            Watching the daily Syrian body-count has prompted the U.N. and Cairo-based Arab League to condemn Assad’s actions, despite knowing that more radical elements could take over Syria should Assad throw in the towel.  “It’s premature to take a decision to arm the opposition movement in Syria because I would challenge anyone to identify for me the opposition movement at this point,” said Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Dempsey worries, like he did in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, about whether Syria would fall into more hostile hands than the Assad government.  Since his father died June 10, 2000, the young Assad has ruled Syria with the same iron grip as his father.  Fighting for his survival, Assad is determined to turn back Arab and Western criticism blaming him for Syria’s martial law while attempting to beat back insurgents.

            Dempsey expressed fear that al-Qaida was behind opposition forces in Syria.  Having lost prestige since Osama bin Laden’s May 1, 2011 death, al-Qaida’s new No. 1, Egyptian-born, former Egyptian Brotherhood member, Ayman al-Zawahri, would love to get a foothold in Syria.  Finding Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya inhospitable, al-Zawahri would like to avenge Bin Laden’s death by seizing control of Syria.  “And until we’re a lot clearer about, you know, who they are and what they are I think it would be premature to talk about arming them,” said Dempsey, opposed to U.N. pressure to intervene.  U.S. officials have much bigger fish to fry in Tehran, whose recalcitrant President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuses to give up Iran’s active nuclear enrichment program.  Despite Assad’s support of Israel’s bitter enemy, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the U.S. can’t risk a radical regime change.

            Democratizing Syria would wind up in the same place as Gaza, whose pro-Hamas rebels toppled June 14, 2007 the more moderate Palestinian government of the late Palestine Liberation Chairman Yasser Arafat, now led by West Bank-based Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.  “Intervening in Syria would be very difficult . . . And I think that the current path of trying to gain some kind of international cooperation is the proper path, rather that taking the path to do something unilaterally,” said Dempsey, speaking more for the White House than the Pentagon.  Pentagon officials, like Dempsey, don’t set policy, they follow it.  Obama, through Dempsey, wishes to test public opinion that seems pleased with extricating the U.S. from Iraq and Afghanistan.  With a confrontation brewing in Iran, arming Syrian rebels, or worst yet, intervening in Syria’s civil war would be a mistake.

            Intervening in Iran or Syria before the presidential election would make no sense for the Obama White House.  Already bogged down in salvos from the GOP, Obama must stay focused on the economy, avoiding temptations to solve the world’s problems.  If attacked by Iran, that’s a different story.  Short of unprovoked aggression, the reason to intervene in Iran, Syria or elsewhere must be based on inescapable national security concerns, not an adventurist foreign policy.  U.S. officials have seen what’s happened in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein’s once Sunni-dominated Baathist Party has now been replaced by the ruling Shiite Party of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.  Despite all the sacrifices of U.S. blood and treasure since March 20, 2003, Iraq is now in the hands of a Shiite majority with strong ties and loyalty to Iran.  Messing around with Assad’s fragile Shiite rule could radicalize the area.

            Watching Assad’s daily crackdown on Syria’s Sunni rebels, outside terror groups and its civilian population sickens almost all paying attention.  Whether or not the U.S. or U.N. likes it, keeping the Western-educated Assad in power could be the lesser of evils.  “They have a very sophisticated, integrated air defense system.  They have chemical and biological weapons.  They haven’t demonstrated any interest or any intent to use those, but it is a very different military problem,” said Dempsey, underscoring difficulties with U.S. intervention in Syria.  Instead of the Bush Doctrine of democratizing unstable Mideast countries, Obama must not get the U.S. into another sticky wicket, pouring more U.S. blood and treasure down a rat hole.  Ending the Iraq War and scaling down Afghanistan requires more caution, holding as many arrows in the quiver before the next real threat to U.S. national security.

  John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.       

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.