Washington’s Long Flirtation with Syria’s Extreme Islamists
Posted on December 18, 2024
The collapse of Bashar Al-Assad’s Syrian government in
late November and early December 2024 occurred with stunning speed. There was
little question that Joe Biden’s administration and several U.S. allies,
especially Turkey, were pleased with the outcome. Washington had worked
diligently to force Assad from power since 2011, even though the effort
triggered a civil war that had produced more than 600,000 fatalities and over 13 million people displaced. Russia’s military intervention in 2015,
though, gave the Assad regime and the Syrian military a new lease on life.
Until the latest offensive, rebel control of Syrian territory had shrunk
markedly.
The Biden administration, as well as the always
reliable pro-imperial mouthpieces in the establishment news media, predictably
have portrayed the dramatic rebel victory as the “liberation” of the oppressed
Syrian people. The lead segment on the December 15 edition of the CBS
program “60 Minutes” was typical. Such propaganda continues a long,
dishonorable tradition of portraying even Washington’s most corrupt, authoritarian clients as proponents of freedom and democracy.
The whitewashing of Volodymyr Zelensky’s
autocratic rule in
Ukraine is another ongoing example.
No one seriously disputes that the Assad family, which
had ruled Syria with an iron fist for decades, was a nasty governing
elite. However, the abusive nature of the entrenched regime did not
automatically mean that its opponents were better. U.S. officials,
though, have behaved with utter certainty that the anti-Assad factions would be
a major upgrade to Syria’s governance, as well as improve overall prospects for
peace in the Middle East. Especially with respect to Syria, Washington
has conducted a shameless flirtation with Islamic radicals. U.S. policymakers
should act with less arrogance and much greater caution. The leading faction in
the coalition that overthrew Assad is Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which until
very recently had close ties to Al Qaeda and the United States officially
considers it a terrorist organization. During the earlier phase in
Syria’s civil war, the strongest insurgent military faction (by far) was the
Nusra Front – Al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria.
Syria was and is a fragile ethnoreligious
tapestry. The predominant Arab ethnic population is subdivided among
Sunnis (about 60 percent of the Arab population); Christians (10-12 percent);
Alawites, a Shiite offshoot (also 10-12 percent); and Druze, a sect combining
elements of Shia Islam, Christianity, and Judaism (about 5 percent).The
remainder of the population comprises various (mostly Sunni) ethnic minorities,
primarily Kurds (about 10 percent) of the total Syrian population.
For more than four decades, the Assad family – which
is Alawite – remained in power because of the loyalty of its Alawite bloc and
its loose alliance with Christians, Druze, and other smaller ethnic
groups. What erupted in 2011 quickly became a largely Sunni Arab bid backed
by Turkey and Saudi Arabia to overthrow Assad’s “coalition of religious
minorities” government. Assad’s ouster may well open the door to tyranny
and persecution of minorities by a new Sunni-dominated regime.
Nevertheless, some U.S. officials and opinion leaders,
especially during Barack Obama’s administration, openly advocated cooperation
with Al Qaeda and its allies. Former CIA director David Petraeus, for example, insisted that some of the
organization’s “more moderate” elements could be useful allies for the United
States, and therefore should be courted. Jake Sullivan, who would later
become President Joe Biden’s national security advisor, embraced similar reasoning.
It is a troubling, persistent policy blindness.
Just a few weeks ago, Sullivan sneered that the United States was not shedding
any tears that Syrian government forces were coming under growing pressure from
HTS fighters. Given the subsequent developments in Syria, one has to wonder
whether the Biden administration had already decided to help HTS and its
ideological cohorts launch a new offensive to oust Assad.
The belief that the revolution in Syria might well
produce a stable, tolerant democratic system over the long term seems exceedingly naïve. The country’s religious schisms alone are
sufficient to generate dangerous, potentially very violent, outcomes. Add
various economic, geographical, and religious factors to the volatile mix, and
a new, catastrophic civil war becomes all too likely.
There is also the ongoing geostrategic struggle
between the West and Russia, in which Moscow’s naval base in Syria could become
a possible key prize. Moscow seems close to achieving an
agreement with Syria’s
new government that the status quo regarding its naval base will be preserved,
but the reliability of that promise remains uncertain. It could become
another flashpoint between Moscow and Washington – about the last development Donald
Trump’s incoming administration should desire.
Syria is a bloody mess, and U.S. leaders bear
extensive guilt for helping to create that situation. The best option now is to
end Washington’s incessant meddling and not make matters even worse. Let
Syria be the last tragic armed U.S. crusade in the Middle East – or anywhere
else.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario