The long-term US funding of anti-government programs in Syria has raised questions about the types of groups being supported, and the benefits and arms supplied to militant groups; establishing political stability requires considered dialogue.
It appears that the US State Department under John Kerry will
soon shift its focus to helping the rebels establish a full-fledged
alternative government on Syrian territory and recognize it as the
legal government of Syria. Such a move would legitimize the
transfer of heavy weaponry and would allow the US to directly
employ air strikes or Patriot anti-missile batteries against
Assad’s forces.
Some would argue that these moves could help to marginalize the
notable al-Qaeda presence among rebel forces. Pumping more arms and
heavier weapons into Syria is unconscionable at this point, and
continuing to do so will inevitably bolster the muscle and reach of
jihadi and Salafist fighters. The argument that the US and its
allies have only armed the “moderate” rebels is a deeply flawed
one; weapons are in high demand by all rebel factions and there is
little means to effectively prevent arms from gravitating toward
hardcore Al-Qaeda fighters.
In his famous 1962 description of irregular warfare operations, US President John F. Kennedy alluded to “another type of warfare,” one that is “new in its intensity, ancient in its origin—war by guerrillas, subversives, insurgents, assassins; war by ambush instead of by combat, by infiltration instead of aggression, seeking victory by eroding and exhausting the enemy instead of engaging him. It preys on unrest.”
After two harrowing years of division, senseless killing and civil war, the scared Syrian nation and its people are well acquainted with these unconventional methods of warfare denounced over 50 years ago.
Yet Western and Gulf states have proven their double standards by enabling radicals elsewhere – lest we forget the presence of Libyan military commander Abdulhakim Belhadj, former leader of the militant Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (officially designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department), who was sent to Syria to aid the Free Syrian Army on orders of the entity formerly known as the Libyan National Transition Council (NTC). The track record of allied Western and Gulf states shows that they are more interested in enabling terrorism for their own purposes rather than preventing it.
Since the eruption of violence in March 2011, Syria has endured targeted assassination campaigns, ceaseless suicide bombings and shelling, and massacres where infants have had their throats slit to the spine – the time has come for the opposition to engage the Assad government in dialogue and finally bring about a ceasefire and the total cessation of violence and insurgency.
From the reports of third-party sniper-fire targeting both protesters and security personnel in the southern city of Daraa at the very onset of the conflict, to the horrendous attacks on the students of Aleppo University in January 2013 – those who have critically monitored the situation from the beginning are under no illusions – the influx of armament and mercenary elements from abroad into Syria has brought the situation to where it is today. Western capitals have provided logistics, coordination, political support, and non-lethal aid, Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have openly provided weapons and monthly salaries for rebel fighters, and Turkey has allowed rebel fighters to receive training and arms from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the southeastern part of the country, allowing militants to pass into Syria freely.
There are those who say that Syria is the subject of an internal revolution that is brutally repressed by a malicious dictator, and those who say instead that Syria is being attacked by foreign powers who have deployed mercenaries and extremist fighters from abroad to engage in the destruction of infrastructure and conduct targeted assassinations to bring about an end to the Assad regime. Despite Washington’s concerns of heavy weapons falling into the hands of Al-Qaeda-linked militants, the US-backed campaign to coax regime change in Damascus has from the very onset enabled militants who justify their acts of terror in the name of a perverted interpretation of Islam. Reports in the Washington Post indicate that US support for anti-government groups in Syria began in 2005, transcending two presidential administrations:
“The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. Syrian authorities ‘would undoubtedly view any U.S. funds going to illegal political groups as tantamount to supporting regime change,’ read an April 2009 cable signed by the top-ranking U.S. diplomat in Damascus at the time. ‘A reassessment of current U.S.-sponsored programming that supports anti-[government] factions, both inside and outside Syria, may prove productive,’ the cable said. The cables report persistent fears among U.S. diplomats that Syrian state security agents had uncovered the money trail from Washington.”
The article describes how Washington funnelled about $12 million to anti-government programs in Syria between 2005 and 2010 to recipients affiliated with the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Israel, which is now illegally conducting exploratory drilling in the occupied Golan Heights, and the US view the toppling of Damascus as a means of extinguishing the critical conduit between Iran and Hezbollah, the political and militant Shi’a organization centered in Southern Lebanon, in addition to helping isolate the Palestinian resistance.
The non-violent route: Laying aside differences
Both the incumbent Syrian authorities and the opposition must
find strength to come to a mutually acceptable compromise. These
parties have no other option than to search for a solution, lay
down an agreeable constitutional basis for elections, and face each
other in international monitored polls once the situation
stabilizes. The Syrian people must not have democracy imposed on
them, and the victor of this war should not be decided on the
battlefield, but by the ballot box.
To gain the confidence of the electorate, election observers from
the US, Qatar, Russia, and Iran could be sent to monitor the
transition process – if the people of Syria want Assad to remain in
power, then the rule of majority must be honored. Militant groups
comprised of mostly hard line foreign fighters such as Jabhat
al-Nusra and the Islamist Ahrar al-Sham cannot be expected to
participate in a ceasefire, so the true test of a short-term
alliance between Assad and the SNC would be in its ability to
cooperate in quelling radical militants and restoring stability –
such is a perquisite for any kind of transition.
Former US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton once threatened Russia
and China that they would “pay a price” for their position on the
Syrian issue. It should be noted that these powers maintained a
balanced approach throughout and advocated dialogue from the start,
in addition to stringently adhering to former UN Envoy Kofi Annan’s
six point peace plan. Iran should also be given due credit for
hosting an International Consultative Conference in August 2012,
which brought together representatives of thirty nations to call
for ending the flow of foreign arms into terrorist hands inside
Syria, proposals to broker a meaningful ceasefire, the coordination
of humanitarian aid, and support for Syrian people's right to
reform without foreign interference.
Accommodating diversity in Syrian society
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi was quoted in the
Washington Post stating, “Syrian society is a beautiful mosaic
of ethnicities, faiths and cultures, and it will be smashed to
pieces should President Bashar Assad abruptly fall. The idea that,
in that event, there would be an orderly transition of power is an
illusion. Abrupt political change without a roadmap for managed
political transition will lead only to a precarious situation that
would destabilize one of the world’s most sensitive regions.”
It is clear that the Assad government is more stable than many
Western states anticipated, and it continues to enjoy popular
support.
Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah recently warned against
sectarian infighting in Lebanon related to the Syrian civil war,
arguing that outsiders are pushing Lebanon “toward civil and
religious strife, and specifically Sunni-Shia strife." Iraqi PM
Nouri al-Maliki also warned that a victory for rebels would
“create a new extremist haven and destabilize the wider Middle
East.” The Syrian regime will not imminently collapse but if it
is brought down by military intervention, the consequences could
lead to a highly unpredictable situation where match and tinder can
meet at any moment with debilitating consequences for the region.
It is time for both parties to convene. It is time to end this
war.
Selective support
Reports published in 2007 in the New Yorker by veteran
journalist Seymour Hersh detail how the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia
supported a regional network of extremist fighters and terrorists
affiliated with al-Qaeda with the aim of stomping out Hezbollah and
Syria’s Assad in a bid to isolate Iran, who is viewed as an
existential threat to the US and its allies in the region. A
principal component of this policy shift was the bolstering of
Sunni extremist groups, hence the ever-deepening sectarian nature
of the Syrian conflict:
“To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.”
While the CIA has purportedly claimed to distribute arms only to
“secular” and “moderate” rebel forces, Washington
insiders from various academic and think-tank circles have openly
endorsed bizarre positions in favor of integrating terrorists into
Syria’s rebel forces. “Al-Qaeda's Specter in Syria,” penned by
Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Ed Husain, argues in
favor of Al-Qaeda terrorists and their inclusion in the Free Syrian
Army, stating, “The influx of jihadis brings discipline,
religious fervour, battle experience from Iraq, funding from Sunni
sympathizers in the Gulf, and most importantly, deadly results. In
short, the FSA needs al-Qaeda now.” Foreign Policy’s, "Two
Cheers for Syrian Islamists," penned by Gary Gambill of the heavily
neo-conservative Middle East Forum, argues in favor of Al-Qaeda,
“Islamists -- many of them hardened by years of fighting U.S.
forces in Iraq -- are simply more effective fighters than their
secular counterparts. Assad has had extraordinary difficulty
countering tactics perfected by his former jihadist allies,
particularly suicide bombings and roadside bombs.”
While many Western media outlets once likened Syria’s rebels to
pro-democracy freedom fighters, it has become more challenging to
view them as anything other than Salafist radicals – the former’s
existence was amplified specifically to provide cover and
legitimacy for the violence and subversion of the latter. As a
result of a foreign-backed insurgency, the Assad regime resorted to
tactics of shelling and conducing air strikes on rebel strongholds,
which were mostly in densely populated urban areas. It should not
be denied that these heavy-handed tactics have also led to a
substantial and regrettable loss of life.
The Friends of Syria group recently convened in Rome, where the
US State Department has pledged $60 million to help the opposition
maintain "the institutions of the state" in areas under their
control, such as establishing terms of governance, the rule of law,
and police forces. Reports have also claimed that the US is also
deliberating more open engagement in Syria under newly appointed US
Secretary of State John Kerry, however Washington has stopped short
of openly providing arms and military training. American and
western officials have told the New York Times that Saudi Arabia
has recently financed a large purchase of infantry weapons from
Croatia and funnelled them to Syrian rebel groups. Although the
United States is not credited with providing arms to rebel forces,
the New York Times has reported the presence of CIA operatives in
southern Turkey since June 2012, who are distributing weapons with
the Obama administration’s blessing. US spokesperson Jay Carney was
quoted as saying, "We will continue to provide assistance to the
Syrian people, to the Syrian opposition, we will continue to
increase our assistance in the effort to bring about a post-Assad
Syria."
In early March 2013, the Syrian National Council (SNC) will meet in Istanbul to form a provisional government that would oversee rebel-held areas of the country. This wouldn’t be the first time the SNC has attempted to form a government; previous attempts in January 2013 fell apart, with many factions refusing to consider a prime ministerial nominee. SNC President Moaz al-Khatib has angered several factions for proposing his readiness to negotiate with the Assad government, a position that many in the opposition refuse to accept.
The Syrian Ambassador to the UN Bashar al-Jaafari has urged the Friends of Syria states to convince the Syrian opposition to sit down for an unconditional national dialogue, which al-Khatib has expressed his willingness to take part in. One could surmise that al-Khatib’s shift toward dialogue indicates that the SNC is feeling less secure and more wary of a possible military defeat or rivalry with radical factions. Such a dialogue would undoubtedly represent a step in the right direction. Despite political differences and two years of deep conflict, these two parties must establish a genuine ceasefire and partnership to restore a climate of normality throughout the country. In this context, both parties must be able to agree on coordinating aid distribution to all parts of the country.
International recognition of a provisional SNC government would
only create further divisions at a time when national unity is most
needed. Although rebel-held areas are badly isolated and in need of
humanitarian supplies, the delivery of aid must be facilitated
through direct talks and partnership between Moaz al-Khatib’s
Syrian National Council and Bashar Al-Assad’s government.
Nile Bowie for RT
The statements, views and opinions
expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.