United States Picks Between Wrong Sides in Syria

President Obama’s Administration reached a decision to, in theory, begin to send small arms directly. This is being sold as the United States will begin to send arms to the rebels in Syria. This implies that the United States was not arming the rebels before this decision. If only they were that discerning in their decision making. What this is actually announcing is that with Turkey now falling into chaos with riots in every major city across the nation, the United States has lost their go between which had allowed them to funnel arms to the Syrian rebels, mostly originating out of Libya, through Turkey while being able to pretend in the domestic news to appear to not being at all involved in the Syrian Civil War. The question the American public needs to decide is has their country chosen the right side to support. The obvious answer is they have not but the reality is that there was no correct side to choose. All that is being chosen in Syria is which terror groups will lead the Islamic world for the immediate future in any future engagements with the rest of the world. Perhaps some inspection and tracing the history behind this decision will make things more understandable.

 

Perhaps the first item would be to attempt to discern who gets the credit or blame for deciding to support the rebels in Syria. The first item we need to state is that, like or hate the choice, President Obama really did not have much of a choice in which side to support. He chose whether or not to support a side in the Syrian Civil War, but the side was chosen all the way back in 1953 and possibly even earlier. It was that year the United States backed Mohammad-Reza Shah Pahlavi in the 28 Mordad coup, date of the coup in the Persian calendar, with Operation Boot under the title of the TPAJAX Project during the end of the Truman Presidency, replacing the democratically elected government in Iran which was proposing to ally with the Soviet Union. Needless to point out that this alignment and access to the oil fields were the driving motivations for the United States and no altruistic reasons were present. This was purely a case of we will put our man in for the oil and to spite our adversary, the Soviet Union. Perhaps it was attempting to make amends for the previous devious actions that inspired President Carter to back the revolt which brought the Ayatollah Ali Khomeini to power establishing an Islamic religious regime which remains in power today under the second Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The miscalculation by President Carter was quickly made evident as the new leadership in Iran chose to ally with the Soviet Union soon after coming to power. Perhaps there was just a bit of schadenfreude felt by the Iranians and Soviets from these turns of events. This resulted in the current alignment with Russia aligned with the Shiites and Iran and the United States aligned with the Sunnis and Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Hopefully that is sufficient historical reference.

 

The current excuse for a Civil War in Syria has in all actuality become a power struggle for preeminence of the Muslim world between its two main groups, the Sunnis and the Shiites. The Alawite Ruler of Syria, President Bashir al-Assad, is backed predominantly by Iran which has provided him with troops from the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and Hezbollah terrorist troops from Lebanon, another satellite of the Iranians. These are the Shiite Islamic forces in Syria. The rebels originally consisted of one side representing secular interest and the other representing Islamist interests. The secular rebel forces have basically been all but removed from the conflict and have virtually no hope of prevailing in the conflict. That leaves the Islamist forces which consist of two camps, those with the Jabhat al-Nusra Front which has declared their alliance with Ayman al-Zawahiri and al-Qaeda and those supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. The challenge in this is to find which side consists of the good sides, or at least the less bad side. President Bashir al-Assad has utilized intimidation, torture, rape, and other equally abhorrent instruments of oppression to retain his hold on power and his two supporting groups are equally renowned for cruelty and ends justify the means reasoning. This does not necessarily make the rebels any more benign. There is not much that needs to be said about al-Qaeda beyond World Trade Center terror strike and the horrors of a fateful day in September 2001 and their compatriots in the conflict, the Muslim Brotherhood, are not the choir boys who have, according to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, “…an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.” In truth they are exactly the opposite but somehow possibly still preferable to al-Qaeda as long as one ignores such aligned subgroups such as Hamas. So, this pretty much defines the adversaries from which President Obama has now presumably chosen one side to support. Perhaps he simply chose the side which was not supported by the Russians, but one might hope that such a decision was made with deeper concerns that just that.

 

So, President Obama has chosen to back the al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood in their attempt to be the preeminent guiding force in Islam while the Russians are supporting the Iranian sponsored terrorist out of Lebanon, oppressive dictator of Syria and the terror specialists out of Iran, the IRGC. The problem is deciding which side is populated with people who deserve the support of the nation which claims to be the bastion of freedom and human rights in the world. Truthfully, the reasoning behind President Obama backing the rebels is more realistically stated as backing Saudi Arabian and Egyptian interests and opposing Iranian interests, not to mention opposing Russian attempts to rise to power over the Middle East. As mentioned before, the sides were chosen far before the Civil War broke out in Syria and goes back to two fateful choices in Iran, the 1953 coup that brought the Shah to power to prevent Soviet Union preeminence in Iran and the 1979 coup that placed the Ayatollahs into power who then chose to join the Soviet Union block of nations despite the attempts by President Carter to make amends for the perfidy under the administration of President Truman. Now all that remain is to have one side prove out victorious and gain, for the moment, the leadership of the Muslim world. Will it be the Shiites with their Russian allies or the Sunni with their American allies? Why does it matter? That is the problematic part of the equation. Which side of this conflict would present the higher likelihood to bring peace to the Middle East? The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has benefitted greatly from the Arab Winter which was initially represented as the rise of democracy in the Arab and Muslim world but really has simply changed the prearranged winners in every election from some nationalist dictator to some Islamist dictatorial party such as the Peace and Justice Party in Egypt which is nothing more than the Muslim Brotherhood political influence. The Sunni Muslim Brotherhood has risen to power across Northern Africa in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya all with backing and praise from the United States. Those changes in leadership were of no consequence to the power structures as the dictators were Sunnis as are the Islamists who have replaced them. Syria is the first place where the Sunni and Shiite both have a serious shot at controlling Syria. Syria is vitally important to Iran as it represents a critical nation in the Shiite Crescent which currently exists starting in Iran and the Persian Gulf and proceeding through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon to the Mediterranean Sea. Saudi Arabia has the most interest in neutering of Iran and breaking their control through the heart of the Middle East would be an impressive first step. If, on the other hand, the Shiites prevail and retain their control over Syria, the potential for the Shiites to continue their slow spread across the Middle East and, more importantly, the greater oil fields in the center of the Middle East, Iran will continue to spread its strangling tentacles across the Muslim world. Iran had made an attempt at expanding during the Arab Winter revolution in Bahrain in direct opposition to the Bahraini Monarchy, Saudi Arabia. The Shiites were repulsed by heavy Saudi Arabian troops which were sent across the causeway which connects Saudi Arabia with the island nation of Bahrain. This was the second part of the Sunni-Shiite contest for preeminence in the Middle East after the Shiite taking control over Iraq after the United States war to remove Saddam Hussein. Syria will be the deciding battle. Should the Shiites and Iran prove successful the spread of the Iranian influence is likely to continue while should the Sunnis and the Saudi Arabian-Egyptian alliance will present a more stable future.

 

So, what does this mean we should look for in the future that might signal a change in the status quo? Should the Sunni win out in Syria there will be relative quiet, is the Middle East ever really completely tranquil, and the first sign of trouble coming would be the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian monarchy by either the Wahhabi or the Muslim Brotherhood. This would soon result in the final contest to begin for who will lead the Muslim forces in any eventual contest. Should the Shiites prove victorious in Syria their next target appears to be Turkey followed by Jordan. After Turkey and Jordan, choosing their next target will be problematic as their preference would appear to be Saudi Arabia and their satellite nations they provide protection for such as Bahrain, Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar and Omar or Egypt in order to begin a march across Northern Africa. Iran is being patient with their slow and inexorable march to gain the preeminent position at the head of the Muslim world. But the first stop of this creeping revolution is in Syria. The worst result that could result in Syria would be actual Russian or American troops intervening in the Syrian Civil War. Should either of these nations transit from arming their chosen side to actual boots on the ground or even fighters in the skies, the other will be obliged to also enter the war. Where that leads is unimaginable and something to be avoided at all costs. The critical point of no return will come when one side appears poised to prevail and defeat the other side and the United States or Russia will have to either accept defeat of their surrogate or intervene. Intervention should be avoided but I seriously doubt that either President Obama or President Putin is capable of accepting defeat. That means that the only end to Syria may be decided across the entire planet and that should scare any reasonable person greatly. This does not bode to end well or even to end any other way than a devastating conflagration.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The Syrian Desert Calling United States

Well, as anticipated United States President Obama has acknowledged the use of chemical weapons by the forces loyal to Syrian President Bashir al-Assad. Responding to the mounting avalanche of evidence presented by the British, French and Israelis, President Obama has declared there will be additional support provided the rebels in their efforts to dethrone al-Assad. Specifics were obvious in their absence but most believe that at a minimum the Americans will be supplying the rebels with arms including such items as small arms, ammunition, grenade launchers, and possibly also anti-tank rockets and even anti-aircraft missiles likely in the form of MANPADs (Man Portable Air Defense System). It is thus far unclear whether or not the rebels will also receive active allied air-support such as a No Fly Zone which would include destroying al-Assad’s air assets both on the ground and in the air while bombing the airports and runways making them unserviceable. President Obama has made it clear that he does not intend to place American troops on the ground in Syria. So, are we supposed to be all happy and throw down with al-Assad and up with the rebels’ parties? I think not and the reasons why will follow. 

 

Supporting the rebels very early on in the Civil War would have been something which at least would have had a slim glimmer of hope of placing better governance in Syria as at least a sizeable plurality of the rebel forces at that time were supportive of secular rule. As the Civil War has progressed there have been large numbers of casualties on all sides. This meant that the numbers in each faction have taken a severe toll. This has been ameliorated by al-Assad by incorporating both Hezballah irregular forces and IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) troops from Iran. The Islamist rebel forces have been reinforced by a sizeable influx of Sunni Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and additional Mujahedeen from numerous other predominantly Sunni terrorist groups from numerous countries and organizations. The secular rebel forces have not had the luxury of a plentiful supply of new recruits and therefore seen their numbers impacted heavily by the fighting. This has led to the current situation where the two main groups vying for future control of Syria are the Sunni Islamists of Jabhat al Nusra who consist largely of al-Qaeda supporters against the Shiite Islamists who support either Bashir al-Assad and, should he be killed, the Ayatollahs of Iran. Even should the rebel forces prevail and defeat the Iranian Shiite forces, the fighting would not be finished. There would be a secondary struggle for full control between the secular rebel forces and the Sunni Islamist rebel forces. Such a fight promises to be extremely brief as the Islamists have near unlimited reinforcements resupplying their ranks while the secular rebels have no such pool of fighters from which to resupply their units suffering casualties. This has led to a weakened secular force while the Islamist forces remain relatively robust.

 

Now that President Obama has finally completed his many months of dithering, setting a Red Line and then sliding it one way then the other and is now prepared to aid the rebel forces, there is a serious consequence to his delaying the decision to send aid for over two years. It is a fact that the makeup of the rebel has drastically been shifted away from any possibility for a secular representative governance to result once al-Assad and Iran have been defeated, if that is even possible without placing United States and/or NATO forces on the ground. Judging from the manner that President Obama has committed to removing almost completely from Iraq and Afghanistan without regard for any consequences is a strong indicator, if not proof, that there will be no direct intervention. In the support of being candid and honest, the lack of the possibility for actual United States or NATO troops entering the Civil War in Syria is fortunate as that will prevent the intervention by the Russians who have warned there would be severe ramifications for any intervention by the West. The fact that the United States will be arming the rebels only serves to prolong the conflict as it will serve as a balance for the Russian weapons supplied to al-Assad and by implication to Hezballah and the IRGC. We can expect the Russians to at least consider moving up the delivery dates for the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which they have claimed would not be delivered until early 2014.

 

The losers due to this decision by President Obama are the Syrian people. Those who have fled to neighboring countries will be forced to remain for a far more prolonged time in the refugee camps. The neighboring countries can expect even more refugees to be fleeing the Civil War as the battles are likely to increase in intensity making life within Syria even more impossible. As mentioned earlier in the article, the length of the conflict could easily be extended for an indeterminable time as now both sides have outside logistical support from major weapons and other necessities virtually without end. The other losers will be the secular rebel forces as their numbers will continue to decrease which will soon make their influence inconsequential which will leave only the Shiite-Sunni Islamists battling for control of what has become the pivot point in their historical battle for preeminence over Islam. This will be proven by history as one more time where President Obama arrived at a decision just in time for it to be too little too late, mostly too late. It has become evident that President Obama has no taste for foreign policy and that evident revulsion only grows if there is any potential requirement for him to commit to an action and gets even worse if the action is of a military nature. The most glaring and by far most consequential evidence of President Obama’s inability to act definitively in the face of a crisis which potentially requires a military response was the debacle of Benghazi and the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Information Officer Sean Smith, and former navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

The War Whose Name Must Not be Spoken

The war in Syria has been labeled with many names all of which avoid the actual underlying root of the conflict currently being fought. The Syrian conflict has been called by some a civil war yet a large number of the combatants are from places other than Syria. Others refer to Syria as a war between a nationalist dictator against Islamic Jihadists yet there are Jihadists from al-Qaeda on one side and Jihadists of Hezballah on the other as well as the Syrian Army remaining loyal to President Bashir al-Assad, a nationalist dictator, fighting the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary which also claims to be a nationalist oriented group. Another difficulty is the lack of unity on the side of the rebels as the nationalists and the Jihadists do not coordinate and often have separate goals. Their inability to work as a single entity may prove to be their undoing because it allows for them to be picked off individually and divides their numbers and efforts. As the Syrian conflict has continued there have been two themes, one internal and one external. The internal theme playing out on the ground in Syria is the age old Islamic struggle between Sunni and Shiite and which will be dominant. The external conflict is also a familiar one that recalls the struggles of the Cold War with one side being the Iranians and their Arab allies backed by Russia against the other side featuring the United States with NATO and the Gulf Oil Kingdoms being led by Saudi Arabia. If we look back and remember the old Cold War lines of the Middle East we would discover the old symmetry with Russia backing one side and the United States backing the other in any skirmish or small war which broke out. When the Unite States backed Iraq and Saddam Hussein the Russians backed Iran and the Ayatollahs. Go back even further when the United States backed Iran and the Shah then the Russians were the best friends with Iraq. The one country which has always been close to Russia though has been Syria while the United States kept ties through making one Arab nation a member of NATO, that being Turkey.

 

The future of the Syrian conflict appeared like it could be settled quickly in its early stages as the conflict had all the markings of what has already occurred in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya. The one trend which made the difference is easily seen looking back at the progressions and noting the differences. The overthrow of Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali happened with great rapidity and minimal external influence encouraging events. Not too far behind came the resignation by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak which required a significantly longer stretch of demonstrations, considerably more violence than had occurred in Tunisia. This was followed by a number of events in the Gulf Regions where eventually Yemen was the sole government overthrown which again took external Western pressure and considerable violence which has yet to subside completely. The continued violence consists of tribal conflicts plus al-Qaeda forces also vying for control of much of the country. There had been some serious contentions and threats in Bahrain which was subsequently squelched by Saudi Arabian intervention. Also almost completely overlooked was the display by the Saudi Arabian government forces which pretty much prevented the fomenting of any honest threat or resistance to the Royal Family’s rule. The next major government to be overthrown was Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi in a full-fledged Civil War lasting several months and requiring quite an amount of foreign intervention. NATO forces, consisting primarily of French, British and United States air power, were used to impose a No-Fly Zone over all of Libya and eventually even providing air support sorties aiding the rebel forces in their ground assaults. There were many rumors of NATO troops on the ground but such reports were more often denied, especially by the United States White House and President Obama. The Syrian conflict has lasted well over two years now and any possibilities of an early end are forgotten. There was no intervention by the United States or NATO as the Russians and Chinese blocked any United Nations Chapter 7 Resolutions which are required for the use of force. Refusing to allow a Chapter 7 Resolution has proven to be sufficient to prevent United States President Obama from taking actions as it has appeared that President Obama values any United Nations approval as necessary for him to act. Some have claimed that President Obama is more concerned with and subservient to the United Nations than he is the United States Congress. Without participation from the United States, even leading from behind style support like in Libya, there was absolutely no possibility of the rest of NATO or the European Union taking action by themselves. Thus no outside interventions have led to longer conflicts as time progressed, which also brought more vicious fighting and far higher casualties both among combatants and the innocent civilians. Further proof of this is the oft ignored fact that the fighting has yet to completely end in Libya as the different tribes are still contesting control of the more remote areas far from the major cities.

 

As the war continues to grind on the main fight has evolved to where there are now five main forces vying for control. There are still the two rebel groups where the nationalist forces have been unable to refresh their troops as the fighting has taken its toll while the Jihadists, who have declared their complete allegiance with al-Qaeda, have been drawing in support from Sunni Jihadists throughout the Arab World and have become the stronger force amongst the rebels. On the other side are the forces supporting the continued rule by al-Assad. Even here there are two main groups; one being Syrian military forces who have remained loyal to al-Assad largely because they are, like him, Alawite Shiites facing likely death should he lose, and the other group being loyal to Iranian interests and who will continue to fight even should al-Assad fall from power as using Syria as a base and staging area as well as a vital link in the Iranian Crescent from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. The two parts of the Iranian forces are the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) who are actual Iranian trained military troops specializing in foreign interventions and terror support and Hezballah which is the Iranian proxy government in Lebanon where they have replaced the Lebanese government through voter intimidation and assassinations in order to form a favorable coalition. These Iranian forces in Syria pose the greatest threat to the lives of civilians as they have little compunction when it comes to slaughtering civilians or anybody else who may be considered an obstacle or simply in the wrong place at an inconvenient time. Should the fighting continue long enough the Syrian Civil War will mostly be fought between forces which are not Syrian in their origins, they will be al-Qaeda fighting against the IRGC and Hezballah. As far as anybody intervening, the only country likely to take such measures as things stand now are the Russians, but for the time being they will most likely simply supply munitions and other material in support of al-Assad. The one significant introduction the Russians are currently planning is the S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems which they have stated will not arrive before some time in 2014. Of course, should any NATO, European Union or United States forces enter in support of the rebels, then the Russians would likely send the S-300 missile systems immediately and possibly provide their own air support or whatever forces would be required to counter such measures.

 

It is in the possibilities that Syria could spread beyond its own borders that possess the greatest threat. The possibility of Russian intervention is currently not a significant threat and would remain insignificant for as long as al-Assad is not in dire threat of being dethroned. The other possible situation where Russia would enter the conflict would be in response to the United States, NATO, European Union, or possibly even Turkey or Israel were to enter on the side of the rebels against al-Assad. The other threat that exists is al-Assad taking the option of expanding the war which could be accomplished in four ways, by attacking Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, or Israel or any combination of these nations. We can very easily rule out Iraq as they have become an extension of Iran and are almost completely under Iranian influence. Al-Assad would have to completely lose his senses to open a front with Turkey as the Turkish military is vastly better equipped and trained than is the Syrian military. Opening a front with Jordan might be an option but doing such would not likely be to any advantage for al-Assad and his allies, so that is also unlikely. Attacking Israel is an entirely different scenario. It is a distinct possibility that al-Assad might believe that should the Israelis once again use their air power to destroy armaments or other supplies for any reason, such being transferred into Lebanon for Hezballah to use at their convenience against Israel being the most probable reason as such has already occurred, that by retaliating against the Israelis and declaring an Arab Holy War, a Jihad, for the annihilation of every Jew and the liberation of all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, a genocidal war of conquest, that such an act would gather the entirety of the Arab World to fight by his side against the common enemy. The one problem with such a plan is that should nobody join in his declared Holy War, then he would be facing Israel alone. Facing Israeli Defense Forces would definitely tip the balance of power away from al-Assad, but it would also not be beneficial to the IRGC forces or to the Hezballah forces as Israel would very likely do whatever it took to eliminate their presence as long as they were in the neighborhood. The only reason such a suicidal attack by Syrian Military on Israel might be taken would be in the hopes that once Israel retaliated and was earnestly engaged that Russia might be persuaded that this was actually an Israeli initiative and thus have Russian troops enter in order to rescue al-Assad and the rest of the Russian supported forces. After all, Russia has a number of clients’ forces currently operating within Syria with al-Assad, and old and loyal client, Iran, also a long time client, and Hezballah.

 

Whatever the future holds, the conflict in Syria will continue to take its toll in life and property all because when supporting the rebels might have resulted in a definitive and quick war with the nationalists likely to prevail, there was nobody willing to step up and provide the necessary support. That has brought the world to the point where Russia has cast their dye into the waters promising to act should anybody interfere in Syria against al-Assad. Meanwhile, it appears that John McCain and President Obama are about to repeat the same dance they performed which led to the United States with French and British assistance provided air-cover and support for the rebel forces in Libya. This could prove to be the first domino falling that starts the torrent of dominoes rippling across the face of the globe. Russian promises are best not tempted, but somehow I doubt the President Obama believes the Russians are serious or would dare to oppose him. President Obama possesses sufficient hubris that it just might be that he believes that he can stand toe-to-toe and force Russian President Putin to blink. The only question is will President Putin need to take off his shirt before the staring contest begins because there is no question that Putin does not know how to blink.

 

Beyond the Cusp