I apologize for the holdup on this one fellas, I promised on Saturday that I’d post my reflections on the recent development concerning the announcement that the U.S. will begin arming the rebels in Syria but I left my readers high-and-dry. Some things came up that prevented me from typing my big thoughts on my 5-year-old, dying laptop so just bear with me.
Ok so in case your head’s been in the sand forever like how Miss. Utah’s is from last night’s Miss. USA pageant, on Thursday the U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, announced that the U.S. would provide direct military assistance to the rebels, after concluding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons on several occasions. Good idea or bad idea? Observe:
- Recently, in a major blow to the rebels, Assad’s forces took the city of Qusayr and are closing in on Aleppo.
- Hezbollah (the Lebanese militants and Iranian proxy group) has not only been helping them with Qusayr and Aleppo, but has also publicly and fully committed to the Assad regime’s survival.
- Iran has supported Assad not only through Hezbollah but also with their very own elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard (the same guys who gave us hell by supporting opposition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan when we were there).
- Russia continues to support Assad with funding, armaments and a guaranteed veto in every international conference whenever Syria comes up on the schedule.
- The Syrian government, by using those chemical weapons we’ve all been hearing about, has crossed that “red line” that Obama mentioned last year. The use of chemical weapons, he said, would be a game changer that would warrant more action.
As you can see from the points above, chemical weapons use is but one part in a five part equation. And because Obama pigeonholed himself in a corner by drawing that line in the sand about chemical weapons, and they’re used, what do you expect him to do? He can’t not do nothing; superpowers do not bluff. Oh, and no, Mr. Obama probably didn’t come to the decision because he succumbed to Bill Clinton’s pressure after he called him a wuss; for the record, if someone calls you a wuss for not doing something, and then you go ahead and do it, that just proves you are, indeed, a wuss. President Obama is no wuss.
I’ll start by saying this, though: Obama’s decision is shrewd and realist. The developments likely got Mr. Obama thinking:
- Peace-talks are coming up soon, and the rebels are not likely to come to the negotiating table without some sort of a confidence boost in the form of new gains and outside support.
- The rebels don’t have to win, they just have to make sure they don’t lose. That is guerilla strategy 101, used by groups throughout history from Latin America to Africa to those insurgents who welcomed us with open arms in our recent Middle Eastern escapades.
With that in mind, what’s the solution if you’re Obama? What if you could get Al Qaeda and Hezbollah to fight eachother in Syria? What if you could do to Iran in Syria what they did to us in Iraq and Afghanistan?: commit them to a resource-draining war with no end in sight. What if you can keep the rebellion alive to the point of bogging down Iran and their allies in their own resource-draining civil war, and all you have to do is give some Kalashnikovs and humanitarian aid to make sure the rebels live to fight another day? I’ll take it for now.
That being said, I want to tell you all something that you probably don’t want to hear: this whole Syria thing is going to play itself out for at least another 10 years. With about 1,000 militias and roughly 6 major minority groups (All Christian groups, Jews, Druze, Kurds, Alawites, and other Shia Muslim sects), there are too many players with their own agendas and interests. A report by the New York Times states “Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.” There are only Islamists, and less Islamist groups, some with ties to Al Qaeda, and others with the Muslim Brotherhood. The reality is that the fiercest and most seasoned fighters that have made significant rebel gains in this war are the hardliner jihadis.
And if we do end up intervening any more than just sending light weapons, supplies and moral support, it probably won’t change the reality that with Assad deposed, everyone will keep killing each other anyway. Why? Because that’s what happens in a civil war. If we intervene, than we own Syria, just like Afghanistan and Iraq, and we will again be forced to control an uncontrollable situation. Think of this: the losers in this war and every war like it know what they have coming to them when they do lose (I’ll give you a hint, the technical term is “massacre”), so they will fight to the very end. Think of Lebanon and their 15 year-long ‘75-’90 civil war that resulted in the ouster of the Christian-minority regime, and Iraq when we invaded in 2003 to overthrow the minority Sunni regime, only to fight them again as guerrillas all the way up until today. No fly zones have to be enforced, and enforcing those increases the risk of escalation and greater miscalculation that could turn ugly. The only thing intervening any further would do is change the reality of who is massacring whom.
There’s a saying: Things usually get worse before they gets better. Unfortunately for Syria, it looks like things will stay the same for a very long time before it gets worse than that. So good idea or bad idea then? For now, it looks like there are only bad ideas and worse ideas; in fact, it’s kind of like taking sides in Game of Thrones. Looking forward, I see the U.S. involving itself in some good ol’ asymmetric warfare; that is, everything short of committing U.S. forces.