That the US has sent a task force of 150 military advisers to Jordan to shore up the regime in the face of the spillover effects of the Syrian war speaks volumes about the gravity of the conflict in Syria. To add to the fray, Turkey has now shelled the border region for nearly a week. Lebanon has long been feeling the repercussions of the Syrian war, and more and more militants, some of whom are battle-tested veterans of the Libyan war (incidentally many of them are veterans of the Afghan jihad of the 80s) are converging on Syria to join the fight. Opposition organizations estimate that the death toll stands at a staggering 30,000 and climbing fast. They may be exaggerating but I fear that they are probably not too far off the cuff. With Iran, China, and Russia’s continued support of the murderous Ba’ath regime, and the Saudi and Qatari oil sheikhdoms financing the Free Syrian Army’s armed struggle (which at times mirrors the gruesomeness of the Ba’ath regime), this conflict is spiraling out of control fast with absolutely no end in sight. What’s more, there are unconfirmed reports that Iran is preparing to send troops to Damascus. I seriously doubt this as the regime in Iran is smarter than many think, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was doubling down on the Assad regime in one capacity or another.
-
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.”
Meta
One has to consider who is fighting for freedom in Syria? Qatar and Saudi Arabia. That is where this comedy, if it were not tragic, begins. One cannot hope for democracy in Syria when the opposition quickly picked up arms and was weaponized. Contrast that to the Egyptian revolution where people fought the dictator that was supported by the Saudis and others. Therefore, no one in their right minds can possibly be supporting the so called Free Syrian Army.
The problem is that people are confusion two distinct ideas: 1-Support for freedom and democracy in Syria, 2-Support for Saudi backed militias. The two are not the same things and Free Syrian Army won’t lead Syria to democracy. There is absolutely no difference between Saddam’s support of the MEK and its thousands of fighters, and the Saudi/Qatari backing of the so called Free Syrian Army.
Excellent points. Do you think there was ever a moment where you couldve supported the uprising? I feel that earlier in the movement, before it became militarized and before the Persian Gulf countries got involved, it was much more legitimate. What do you think? Or was it poisoned from the beginning?
I totally agree with you. It was an uprising, and that the Assad government probably (but we cannot be sure) played its violent hand too soon. So did Mobarak who killed 1100 people in that one month, but Egyptians stuck to their fists instead of guns.
I also think this does not entirely delegitimize the real aspirations of the Syrian people. But they are now involved in a regional power play backed by global forces, instead of being involved in just changing their national system to a better one.
What is most interesting to me now, and I am being selfish, is that it seems to me the region is tilting toward Iran’s proposal of solving the issue regionally and that it must involve Assad’s Ba’ath party and not necessarily Assad himself. I always remind people that Lebanon was in civil war and that European forces (later the US) occupied portions of Beirut, but no body did anything but to support and arm the Christians. It all only ended when Iran stepped in and brought that nation together (Hezbollah and Christians are now allies). The peace deal was signed in Tehran, and enforced by none other than Syria. That is exactly what Iran did in Bosnia, Afganistan, and Syria’s future will be no different.
Unfortunately, the US is again following old policies but the execution is better under Obama as Iran is finding itself under tremendous pressure. But the end result will be the same.
I expanded the issue. But what do you think?
“But they are now involved in a regional power play backed by global forces, instead of being involved in just changing their national system to a better one.”
I couldn’t agree more.
And I think it’s very counter-productive to exclude Iran out of any discussion pertaining to the region, but I’m not entirely sure of Iran’s role in bring the civil war to an end in Lebanon. The agreement to end the war was signed in Taif, Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, Hizbullah is allied with only one of the Christian factions in Lebanon, not all of them.
But I agree, Iran’s influence and clout is so important that to exclude it from any discussion is to effectively render the results of that discussion null and void.
Your points are well taken.
I do want to point out, unless I have misunderstood that part of Lebanese history, that the Taif agreement was a deal the Arab states cut (and it was the basis that brought an end to the war) to bring Lebanon back and was implemented by Syria. The Taif agreement was also supported by the UN, because after all Lebanon was considered an Arab problem. But most people in Journalism forget that what brought Taif into even existence is that all factions did come to Tehran to agree to negotiate to an end. While the Taif was the legal basis that brought the whole thing to an end, no Arab nation had any influence in bringing the factions together. This was no different to what Iran did in Afganistan. The agreement was cut in Bonn, Germany. But who made it possible?