White House Beats Syrian War Drums

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 6, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

              White House officials blasted Bashar al-Assad’s overnight attack on Aleppo University by the Syrian military.  U.N. peace efforts led by former Secretary-General Kofi Annan haven’t had much success stopping Assad’s bloody crackdown that started Jan. 26, 2011.  Since then, thousands of Syrian civilians and insurgents have died at the hands of Assad’s military, trying to suppress another Arab uprising that saw Tunisia, Egypt and finally Libya change regimes in the so-called “Arab Spring.”  While the West likes to glamorize pro-Democracy movements, the “Arab Spring” is more about changing one brutal dictatorship for another.  When the 30-year reign of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak ended February 11, 2011, there were high hopes for Democracy in Egypt’s Tahrir Square.  Months later, Egypt now faces the prospect of Islamic rule, reversing Gamal Abdel Nasser’s secular reforms started June 23, 1956.

            Former President George W. Bush got a rude awakening Jan. 26, 2006 when the State Department-labeled terrorist group Hamas won free-and-fair parliamentary elections in Gaza.  Democracy worked except the White House didn’t like the outcome when Gaza voted for Hamas.  Now the U.S. and U.N. want regime change in Syria, without knowing anything about the likely successor regime.  Calling on the world to “admit defeat,” White House spokesman Jar Carney hinted that it’s time for the world to take a tougher stand.  “If the regime’s intransigence continues, the international community is going to have to admit defeat and work to address the serious threat to peace and stability being perpetuated by the Assad regime,” said Carney, expressing the official White House stand.  That same White House seeks China’s approval on the U.N. Security Council.

            Carney’s public remarks mirror the prevailing wisdom that seeks an end to the bloodshed.  Only one small problem:  Assad creates the peace and stability in Syria by cracking down of dissident Sunni groups.  His small Alawite Shiite minority has ruled Syria since its modern inception in 1946, eventually inherited by Hafez al-Assad Feb. 22, 2012 and passed to his son Bashar June 10, 2000.  If the White House or U.N. gets its way for regime change, there are no guarantees for peace-and-stability.  Like in Egypt or Libya, it’s far more likely that the regime that follows will resemble other Sunni fundamentalist regimes springing up in the Middle East.  White House officials talk of the “Friends of Syria” but don’t acknowledge the unknowns linked to regime change, especially the very real possibility that Assad’s Syria would be replaced with a Taliban-like Islamic theocracy.

            Assad’s regime has support in the Security Council from Russian and China that holds healthy skepticism over Syrian opposition groups.  They understand the pitfalls of tossing out Assad’s regime without a suitable replacement.  Russia and China see firsthand what happened in Gaza, Egypt, Libya and now Syria.  “We remain extremely skeptical about the likelihood of success of the Annan plan,” said an unnamed White House aide.  “However, we support it because we believe it is deterring some regime violence in Syria and will help in the collection of evidence for future accountability,” admitting why the U.S. hasn’t yet called for regime change.  White House and U.N. officials don’t know the direction the regime might take, including opening up a can of worms in the region.  Opposition groups seek U.S. and U.N. military aid but don’t explain what regime would follow.

            Syrian opposition groups are licking their chops while the U.S. and U.N. considers more drastic measures.  Assad’s lucky that there’s a competitive election going on in the States, preventing President Barack Obama from rocking the boat too much.  With so many unpredictable events causing an obstacle course between now and the Election, military action in Syria would be unthinkable.  Any way Barack turns, he’s criticized by the opposition.  Republican presidential nominee former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney blasted Obama for tossing 40-year-old blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng under the bus.  With Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner in Beijing for strategic economic talks, they simply can’t undermine U.S.-Chinese relations by giving Chen political asylum.  There’s simply too much at stake now.

            Looking at the big picture, the White House can’t rock the boat between now and November.  Starting a bombing campaign against Syria would look hypocritical when the president went to great lengths to announce in Kabul the eventual end of the Afghan war. Starting a new war now, especially without knowing the next government, would add, not subtract, from today’s Mideast chaos.  Calling for “political transition,” Carney opens up a can of worms for the Obama administration.  Even in the best of all possible worlds, the State Department can’t support one dissident at the expense of the entire U.S. foreign policy requiring close cooperation on the U.N. Security Council with Communist China.  While Romney makes political hay, the White House needs to act cautiously to preserve U.S.-Chinese relations.  Too many global economic and national security issues require the White House to use common sense.

About the Author 

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