Why the U.S. Must Not Arm Syria’s Opposition: In Disagreement with Robert Ford
By Taj Hashmi
The New York Times has published an op-ed by Ambassador Robert Ford on June 11, 2014. He was the U.S. ambassador to Syria till he resigned this February as he found “it ever harder to justify our [American] policy” in Syria. Despite one’s total disagreement with what he thinks the U.S. should do in Syria, one cannot doubt Robert Ford’s integrity and candor. However, one who is familiar with the history, political economy and culture of Syria and the region as a whole, finds it difficult to agree with the main arguments of his article, “Why We Must Arm Syria’s Opposition”.
He believes America should arm the “moderate armed opposition” in Syria to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad for the sake of “stabilizing the region”, “America’s security” and “core interests” in the region. He thinks America should protect Syrian civilians from Assad’s troops and “jihadists”. One may agree with Ford that America can play the most important role in stabilizing Syria (and the entire region) provided it has a strategy to tackle both Assad, and his Islamist/ “jihadist” challengers who want to establish their versions of Islamic rule, including a transnational caliphate in and around Syria, after his removal from power.
Ford sounds very passionate, distressed and desperate at the same time. He believes time is running out and the U.S. must do something to save Syria, before it is too late to do anything: “We don’t have good choices on Syria anymore…. More hesitation and unwillingness to commit to enabling the moderate opposition to fight more effectively both the jihadists and the regime simply hasten the day when American forces will have to intervene against Al Qaeda in Syria.”
His ambivalence is baffling. One fully agrees with him, there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. But one is not sure why he thinks America and its allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arm and train the “moderates in the armed opposition” to tackle both Assad and Islamist radicals fighting to topple the Assad regime. Oddly, he does not mention the proactive role Saudi Arabia and Qatar played, with tacit support from Washington, in sponsoring radical Islamist militias, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to overthrow Assad. The ISIS is too powerful to be tackled by the so-called moderate fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The way ISIS fighters have overpowered the overwhelmingly numerous and better-armed Iraqi soldiers in northern Iraq should be an eye-opener to all.
It is unbelievable that a seasoned diplomat asks Washington to make overtures to Tehran, and then expects Iran to respond positively to join America “in pushing for serious negotiations” with Assad. We know nothing short of a total reversal of America’s Iran policy (since the Islamic Revolution) can break the ice. America must restrain its regional allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, to cease hostility towards Iran. As Oil and gas producing Qatar does not want a pro-Iranian regime in Syria for allowing the proposed Iranian pipeline to go through Syria to link Europe via Turkey to sell Iranian oil and gas, Saudi Arabia and Israel have ideological / security issues with Iran.
Despite all these, it is time to leave Assad alone. He may be a dictator but does not pose any security threat to the region, let alone America. In Syria, America must not repeat the blunder it committed in Iraq vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein. In view of the ominous developments in Iraq after the ISIS occupation of Mosul, Tikrit, and parts of northern Iraq, it is time that Washington starts worrying about the future of Iraq and the entire region.
As Kofi Annan has observed: “Syria is not Libya, it will not implode; it will explode beyond its borders”. One believes America has nothing to gain from the Syrian crisis. Irrespective of who wins, they would almost certainly form a government hostile to the U.S. and Israel. A protracted civil war would turn Syria into a fractured country, or even worse, five different political entities run by five major sects/ethnic groups. It would not be a better place than post-Saddam Iraq. The departure of Assad – who maintains the balance by restraining/controlling Hezbollah – would be a headache for Israel.
For the sake of a durable peace in the Middle East and the adjoining regions, America must learn some lessons from what it did to Syria in the 1940s and 1950s. It must not arm anybody to overthrow the Assad regime, as in 1949 it overthrew the democratically elected Syrian President Shure al-Quwatly through a CIA-sponsored coup d'état. Quwatly’s successor, Colonel Husni al-Zaim – aka “America’s Boy” – served American and Israeli interests for two months before he was overthrown and executed. And afterwards America staged five military coups in Syria to complete the de-democratization process in the country.
Finally, paying heed to not-so-responsible advice to arm groups to topple the Assad regime would be disastrous and counterproductive. America should not ignore Russia, Iran, and Iraq (among others) who have geo-politic and other interests in Syria. It is time to work for restoring order in both Syria and more so in Iraq, in collaboration with others, including Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.
Taj Hashmi teaches security studies at Austin Peay State University, was Professor at Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Hawaii. Sage has recently published his latest book, Global Jihad and America: The Hundred-Year War Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Taj Hashmi
The New York Times has published an op-ed by Ambassador Robert Ford on June 11, 2014. He was the U.S. ambassador to Syria till he resigned this February as he found “it ever harder to justify our [American] policy” in Syria. Despite one’s total disagreement with what he thinks the U.S. should do in Syria, one cannot doubt Robert Ford’s integrity and candor. However, one who is familiar with the history, political economy and culture of Syria and the region as a whole, finds it difficult to agree with the main arguments of his article, “Why We Must Arm Syria’s Opposition”.
He believes America should arm the “moderate armed opposition” in Syria to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad for the sake of “stabilizing the region”, “America’s security” and “core interests” in the region. He thinks America should protect Syrian civilians from Assad’s troops and “jihadists”. One may agree with Ford that America can play the most important role in stabilizing Syria (and the entire region) provided it has a strategy to tackle both Assad, and his Islamist/ “jihadist” challengers who want to establish their versions of Islamic rule, including a transnational caliphate in and around Syria, after his removal from power.
Ford sounds very passionate, distressed and desperate at the same time. He believes time is running out and the U.S. must do something to save Syria, before it is too late to do anything: “We don’t have good choices on Syria anymore…. More hesitation and unwillingness to commit to enabling the moderate opposition to fight more effectively both the jihadists and the regime simply hasten the day when American forces will have to intervene against Al Qaeda in Syria.”
His ambivalence is baffling. One fully agrees with him, there is no military solution to the Syrian crisis. But one is not sure why he thinks America and its allies, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, arm and train the “moderates in the armed opposition” to tackle both Assad and Islamist radicals fighting to topple the Assad regime. Oddly, he does not mention the proactive role Saudi Arabia and Qatar played, with tacit support from Washington, in sponsoring radical Islamist militias, including the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) to overthrow Assad. The ISIS is too powerful to be tackled by the so-called moderate fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The way ISIS fighters have overpowered the overwhelmingly numerous and better-armed Iraqi soldiers in northern Iraq should be an eye-opener to all.
It is unbelievable that a seasoned diplomat asks Washington to make overtures to Tehran, and then expects Iran to respond positively to join America “in pushing for serious negotiations” with Assad. We know nothing short of a total reversal of America’s Iran policy (since the Islamic Revolution) can break the ice. America must restrain its regional allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, to cease hostility towards Iran. As Oil and gas producing Qatar does not want a pro-Iranian regime in Syria for allowing the proposed Iranian pipeline to go through Syria to link Europe via Turkey to sell Iranian oil and gas, Saudi Arabia and Israel have ideological / security issues with Iran.
Despite all these, it is time to leave Assad alone. He may be a dictator but does not pose any security threat to the region, let alone America. In Syria, America must not repeat the blunder it committed in Iraq vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein. In view of the ominous developments in Iraq after the ISIS occupation of Mosul, Tikrit, and parts of northern Iraq, it is time that Washington starts worrying about the future of Iraq and the entire region.
As Kofi Annan has observed: “Syria is not Libya, it will not implode; it will explode beyond its borders”. One believes America has nothing to gain from the Syrian crisis. Irrespective of who wins, they would almost certainly form a government hostile to the U.S. and Israel. A protracted civil war would turn Syria into a fractured country, or even worse, five different political entities run by five major sects/ethnic groups. It would not be a better place than post-Saddam Iraq. The departure of Assad – who maintains the balance by restraining/controlling Hezbollah – would be a headache for Israel.
For the sake of a durable peace in the Middle East and the adjoining regions, America must learn some lessons from what it did to Syria in the 1940s and 1950s. It must not arm anybody to overthrow the Assad regime, as in 1949 it overthrew the democratically elected Syrian President Shure al-Quwatly through a CIA-sponsored coup d'état. Quwatly’s successor, Colonel Husni al-Zaim – aka “America’s Boy” – served American and Israeli interests for two months before he was overthrown and executed. And afterwards America staged five military coups in Syria to complete the de-democratization process in the country.
Finally, paying heed to not-so-responsible advice to arm groups to topple the Assad regime would be disastrous and counterproductive. America should not ignore Russia, Iran, and Iraq (among others) who have geo-politic and other interests in Syria. It is time to work for restoring order in both Syria and more so in Iraq, in collaboration with others, including Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and Iraq.
Taj Hashmi teaches security studies at Austin Peay State University, was Professor at Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, Hawaii. Sage has recently published his latest book, Global Jihad and America: The Hundred-Year War Beyond Iraq and Afghanistan.
No comments:
Post a Comment