Obama Hit with Pressure to Intervene in Syria

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 7, 2013
All Rights Reserved.                                         

       Press reports about Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using sarin nerve gas to  suppress a growing insurgency in Syria have changed President Barack Obama’s so-called “red lines.”  Conservatives on Capitol Hill, led by ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have urged Barack for months to arm the Free Syrian Army, Syria’s main moderate opposition group.  Obama’s reluctance to get involved militarily stems from many sources, not least of which is what happened in Iraq.  As most people know, Islamic terrorism didn’t plague Iraq until the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime April 10, 2003.  When Saddam’s government went down, there was no transitional government or security service to prevent the widespread anarchy and terrorism that followed right after the U.S. took down Saddam’s government.

             Nearly $2 trillion later and 4,886 U.S. lives lost, Iraq still has more political instability than before operation Iraqi Freedom.  Former President George W. Bush had a vast plan to democratize the Middle East.  While House officials know the outcome in Iraq and the stakes in Syria if the U.S. defies Russia and China and provides military assistance to rebel forces to topple al-Assad.  “I do think we’ll be arming the opposition shortly,” said the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relation’s Committee Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).  “We’re doing a lot more there on the ground than really is known, but we do have to change the equation,” referring to giving the Pentagon the green light to arm Syrian rebels.  Knowing the history in Iraq and the ongoing fiasco in Afghanistan, the last thing Obama wanted was potentially committing the U.S. to a military campaign in Syria.

             Corker and other conservatives believe the U.S. can deliver military aid of moderate rebel groups without those weapons falling into the hands of known terror groups like al-Qaeda.  “I think you all know the moderate opposition groups that we support are not as good at fighting, they’re not as good at delivering humanitarian aid, and we need to change the balance,” said Corker, urging Obama to starting arming moderate rebel groups.  Meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin today, Secretary of State John Kerry hoped enlist Russian support in forcing out al-Assad, knowing full-well Syria’s long relationship with Russia.  Putin will know doubt tell Kerry that toppling al-Assad could create the same power vacuum that brought anarchy to Iraq and Afghanistan and now plagues Tunisia, Libya and Egypt.  Conservatives think that arming Syrian rebels could bring the Russians onboard.

             Corker admitted that if the arms fall into extremist groups like al-Nusra it would complicate the picture.  “A nightmare would be al-Nusra, if you will, gaining control of Syria,” said Corker.  “That’s worse than Assad being there,” recognizing the same pitfalls that has kept Obama from turning over arms to Syrian militias.  Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez (D-Fl.) introduced legislation that would aid moderate Syrian rebel groups and punish countries providing military support to Syria.  What’s most ironic is that Russia has always been al-Assad’s biggest military backer.  What are Corker and other conservatives trying to accomplish:  Antagonizing Russia and returning to the Cold War?  Expecting Kerry to get some kind of breakthrough with Putin is highly unrealistic.  Russia has no intent of leaving its Syrian-Mediterranean-port Tartus Submarine base. 

             Once the U.S. commits to arming Syiran rebels it’s a blatant attempt to overthrow a U.N.-member government.  Whether or not the U.S. or Israel has unfinished business with Syria, the White House must not acquiesce to outside pressure and continue developing relationships with Russia and China.  Antagonizing either country to appease conservative on Capitol Hill makes no sense.  With Iran and the North Korea still making waves, the U.S. needs Russia and China more than backing dubious rebel groups with competing interests.  “I think we can.  We’ve know for a long time which of the groups are more moderate and more secular,” said Corker, referring to questions about keeping U.S. arms away from terrorist groups.  Admitting, “you never have total control,” Corker knows the risks of supply weapons to anyone in Syria.  Obama must look at the big picture before arming rebel groups.

             Antagonizing Russia and China undermines U.S. national security.  If Barack wishes to build cooperation with the two former Cold War enemies, he needs to listen carefully to Putin’s perspective on Syria.  Whether or not you can get arms into the right hands doesn’t answer the question of how that might put off relations with Russia and China.  Whatever happens it Syria, the U.S. is still reeling from two ill-conceived wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that practically broke the U.S. economy.  If the U.S. aids rebels in toppling al-Assad, all bets are off in maintaining law-and-order, as competing groups jockey for power.  Because terror groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas and a host of other Wahhabi Sunni groups have fought to topple al-Assad, they’ll expect a quid-pro-quo in Syria.  If the White House placates conservatives, antagonizing Russia and China, the Syria policy would quickly backfire.

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.