U.S. Syrian Policy on the Wrong Page

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 25, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

             Calling for bombing of government forces March 5, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) got it wrong, tossing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad under the bus, when there’s a bigger picture at stake.  No one knows for sure who supports today’s opposition groups that seek to topple al-Assad’s regime.  No matter how oppressive, al-Assad, like any sovereign entity, has the right to defend his government from subversive forces.  Whatever happened with the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, it doesn’t necessarily apply to Syria, where al-Assad attempts to maintain order.  Whatever al-Assad’s past support of Palestinian or Lebanese terrorists, he has a right to maintain order inside his borders.  United Nations estimates that around 8,000 civilians and rebels have been killed since the uprising started over a year ago, following on the heels of revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.

             Instead of supporting key allies on the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. has chosen to back opposition groups without any real knowledge of their origins or backers, including al-Qaeda, Palestinian’s Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.  Backing rebels slaps Russian and China in the face, whose relationship to the Assad family runs deep.  Rushing to support rebel groups antagonizes Russia, a major supplier of arms, petroleum and technology to Syria.  Opposition groups know the risks to fomenting revolution, including violent suppression by the host government.  Neither Russian nor the U.S., nor any other sovereign state would tolerate insurrection by splinter groups no matter how noble or justified.  Throwing support to rebel groups in Syria is no different than backing Chechen separatist groups that have caused so much terrorism and mayhem in Russia and in former Soviet states.

             Groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International like to characterize government responses as genocide operations.  When the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon commissioned former Secretary-General Kofi Annan March 6 on a special peace mission to Syria, he was responding to international pressure to stop the bloodshed.  When the Arab League sent monitors Dec. 27, 2011 to Syria to halt the violence, al-Assad stepped up attacks on rebel strongholds.  “This may be the last chance for Syria to avoid a long-lasting civil war.  Therefore, we will offer you our full support at any level and in various ways in those areas, of course, in which Russia is capable of providing support,” said Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.  Unlike the U.S., Russia has sympathy for Syria battling separatist movements, something Russian has done since the 1991 demise of the Soviet Union.

                Al-Assad’s Alawite Shiite minority faces stiff resistance from largely Sunni factions inside Syria.  Like the late Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq’s Sunni majority with an iron fist, al-Assad faces a dangerous Sunni revolt that could drive him from power and leave Syria in terrorists’ hands.  McCain’s knee-jerk instinct to drive al-Assad from power not only ignores conditions on the ground in Syria but key relationships on the Security Council requiring more adept management.  “Syria has an opportunity today to work with me and this mediation process to put an end to the conflict, to the fighting, allow access to those in need of humanitarian assistance as well as embark on a political process that will lead to a peaceful settlement,” said Annan, hoping al-Assad would heed his demands.  Annan, too, must temper his demands with al-Assad’s realistic concerns about terrorists.

             Syria’s Sunni majority may not like al-Assad’s Shiite regime but his family has ruled Syria since 1971.  “There are no deadlines, we need to see how the situation develops,” said Russian Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov, referring to timetables on Annan’s mission.  Unlike the U.S., Russia supports the al-Assad’s government’s attempt to restore order while, simultaneously, not capitulating to rebels’ demands.  “This entails non-interference in Syria’s internal affairs and inadmissibility of supporting one side in the conflict,” said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, urging Annan to not take sides with rebels.  “The Syrian army’s use of human shields is yet another reason why the U.N. Security Council should refer Syria to the International Criminal Court,” said HRW emergency researcher Ole Solvang.   HRW doesn’t blame rebels for hiding inside civilian populations to escape al-Assad’s army.

             U.S. officials need to reconsider current regime change policy in Syria.  Before destabilizing the whole region, the White House and Congress must see the big picture of getting along with Russia and China, who have strong preferences for stability over jingoism about Democracy.  When the Bush administration backed free elections in Gaza Jan. 26, 2006, they turned the country over to Hamas, a recognized terrorist group.  Backing rebels in Syria would almost certainly do the same in Syria, harming U.S. national security.  Western officials and their vociferous peace-loving non-profits often back the wrong players, especially in Syria.  As the U.S. found out in Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist groups often hide inside populated civilian areas, making military progress next to impossible.  Before Western groups condemn Syria, they need to look more carefully at how they handle protests.

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.