Originally published in The Barre Times Argus and the Rutland Herald
It is quite clear that here in the US and in the West in general, policy makers are divided on whether or not the west should invade Syria. American “political realists” have pulled out the stops to show the dangers and stupidity of such an invasion, whereas American supporters of “permanent war” led by the same neocons that got us into Iraq are just itching to get us enmeshed in Syria.
The “discussion” of this issue has not always been on the up and up. In fact, the potential for inserting disinformation into the equation is endless.
In a May 9 article, The Times of Israel ran an article laying out Israel’s suspicion that Syria is in the process of buying six S-300 missile batteries and 144 missiles from Russia.
Syria already has a highly advanced air defense system, one that has caused our military planners to be very circumspect about any sort of military adventure in Syria. The addition of a Russian system that is capable downing both fighter planes and cruise missiles would represent a significant upgrade for Syria’s already highly effective air defenses.
Clearly, the purpose of the article was to warn the
United States that the sale could hamper efforts for
international intervention in Syria. Were we being told that we should act sooner rather than later?
This suspicion had previously been reported in the Wall Street Journal. The critical question here is whether or not any of it is true.
Then we have the issue of the use of poison gas in Syria. The original accusation was that the Assad regime had been the culprits. Just now, we have learned that the UN says that the US-backed opposition used the gas, not the regime.
Of course, the poison gas would not have been a major issue had it not been for the inept and ill-considered presidential “red line” that has reduced US options in Syria and put presidential credibility at stake.
But we have the allegations of the poison gas and the unfortunate “red line”, so it really does matter.
Further, there have been constant allegations of atrocities committed by the government and the rebels since the onset of the Syrian insurrection.
The Assad regime is 100% sectarian. Supported by a smattering of Christians and Sunnis, the Alawites, a branch of Shia Islam, have governed in Syria through fear and repression. That is about all one can do when representing no more than 15% of the overall Syrian population. Since the 1970 Assad coup against the Baath regime, the minority Alawites have ruled the majority Sunnis with an iron fist and have allied themselves with Iran and Hezbollah against Israel.
In short, with the exception of Shia Iran, there are few in the region who support the Syrian Alawites.
It is likely that Bashir Assad and the Alawites will only leave Syria in coffins. They probably see no alternative but to stand and fight.
Like everything else in the Middle East, Syria is part of the detritus of colonialism – a “country” formed for the convenience and profit of the old western colonial powers.
With America set up as the main enemy for the Syrians, there is little wonder that we are besieged by all manner of horrendous stories about poison gas, missile deliveries and atrocities. But keep in mind that we are looking at a soundly cynical world in which everyone and anyone is prepared to lie to forward their own interests.
Russia has long had a political stake in Syria and still has a naval base there. The Syrian Sunnis (freedom fighters?) have always chafed under repressive minority Alawite rule. The Alawites, seeing no reasonable alternative to staying in power, will fight on. The Iranians see the Alawites as one of their few allies in a predominately Sunni world. Hezbollah sees the Alawites as their champions in the Hezbollah fight with Israel. Israel sees the Alawites as a constant irritant.
So, who really is behind the poison gas, the missile story and the atrocities? To understand that, one has to look at who benefits from what course of action.
The Israelis, Sunnis, Lebanese, Turks, Saudis, Jordanians and some conservative Americans probably would favor US intervention in Syria if only in the name of stability. These people clearly would try to pin any bad behavior on the Iranians, Shiites Alawites and Hezbollah, true or not, that might encourage US intervention. Then there are the Russians, Iranians and Chinese who would avoid such an intervention.
But in the end, it will probably be U.S. public opinion that decides and there is a growing group of Americans who are exhausted by our wars of the past dozen years and understand the very real dangers in direct Syrian involvement.
With any real luck, they will prevail.
Leave a Reply