In
a
new development, as indicated by statements from Secretary of State
John Kerry and other sources, the Obama Administration is not only
arming but now training Syrian rebels. We know that the weapons are
going to radical Islamists--both Muslim Brotherhood and smaller groups.
We
don't know from which groups these people now being trained militarily
by the CIA in Jordan but the odds are that they are from radical
Islamist groups including the Brotherhood. Finding out who is receiving
this military training--which they are sure to use for other purposes
in future--should be a priority in the national debate and in questions
from Congress.
Since the U.S.
criterion for weapons' supply is only that the groups are not
al-Qaida--the Muslim Brotherhood and other Salafists are
acceptable--isn't the training criterion the same?
In
the 1980s the United States was convulsed by a scandal because the
Reagan Administration was providing arms--through Saudi Arabia--and
training to the pro-American Contra group in Nicaragua that were
fighting against the Marxist regime there. It was alleged that the
Contras participated in some torture and killing of civilians. Well,
today the Obama Administration is doing the same strategy--with Saudi
and Qatari help--in Syria, with much more likelihood of atrocities by
those it is helping. On top of that, those being helped are largely
anti-American and radical Islamist. Yet there is no serious concern
being raised.
Largely due to the
local situation but reinforced by U.S. policy, radical Islamists will
one day rule Syria. What will follow will not be real democracy but
another Islamist dictatorial state. Islamist militias armed with U.S.
weapons and that new regime might well use U.S. weapons and training
to kill Christians and Alawites; enforce second-class status on women;
and intimidate moderates as well as to attack Israel. While the mass
media has widely reported the U.S. role in arming the rebels, and is now
picking up the training story, virtually nowhere is the significance of
this policy and its escalation analyzed.
As
I have repeatedly explained, the issue regarding Syria is not whether
the United States should help more—it is already helping to supply arms
indirectly through Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey—but to whom the arms
and help flow. In principle, the Syrian opposition is fighting against a
terrible dictatorship (see my book, The Truth About Syria for details, available free here).
Yet for all practical purposes, it is dominated by radical Islamist
militias (except for the Kurds who are faced with local rule by a
radical Marxist militia).
The reality, then, is this:
The
United States is training and helping arm radical Islamist guerrillas
who want a Sharia state in Syria, who believe Israel should be wiped
off the map, and who may soon be murdering and oppressing Christians and
other groups in Syria itself.
Shouldn’t this be an issue--one day it might be a scandal--that’s widely discussed in Congress and the mass media?
This brings us to the second problem:
The Islamists are getting more international
military help than the moderates.
While
the nominal Syrian opposition leadership backed by the United States is
better than before (up until recently the Obama Administration openly
backed the Brotherhood-dominated Syrian National Council!) it is
powerless on the ground. The guys with guns—fully automatic weapons by
the way with large magazines—are a nightmare.
Again,
the issue isn’t whether the United States wants an end to Syria's
dictatorship (nationalist version). Yes, of course, to fall (yes, of
course) but whether it wants it to be followed by a Syrian dictatorship
(Islamist version). The latter may be some improvement over the current
regime in one strategic respect: it would be anti-Iran and try to
subvert Iranian influence in Lebanon. But hopes that the Syrian people
will really have a better life are quite
questionable. The czar was overthrown in 1917 by the Communists; so was
the shah, in 1979 by the Islamists; and the much-ridiculed Weimar
Republic in Germany was overturned by Hitler in 1932; and the corrupt
monarchy in Egypt in 1952, and the corrupt regime in Cuba in 1959. At
the time, in each case, it was claimed that the successor regime had to
be better. In fact, it was worse by far.
Israeli
intelligence now says that radical Islamist militias control the entire
Syrian side of the two countries' border. Are U.S.-backed rebels or the
government they produce (even if it denies such behavior) going to
restart attacks on Israel across a border which has been quiet for forty
years?
Equally, in a recent,
mysterious ambush in Iraq almost 50 unarmed Syrian soldiers interned
there were murdered, probably by Syrian opposition Islamists. This
reminds us of likely
future massacres of civilian Alawites and Christians in Syria. These
might be carried out with U.S.-facilitated weapons. Remember that when
such things happen they were predictable and predicted.
Then
there is the potential for anti-American terrorism. I think the U.S.
ambassador was in Benghazi, Libya, the day he was murdered, to try to
retrieve U.S.-supplied weapons, including lightweight, advanced
anti-aircraft systems, that Libyan Islamists were selling to Hamas and
other terrorist groups. Yet how much difference is there between
providing arms to Hamas (Muslim Brotherhood, Gaza branch) and to the
Muslim Brotherhood, Syria branch? And will some U.S. diplomats be placed
in jeopardy a year or two from now trying to get back those weapons
supplied in Syria?
Thus, the Syria situation is setting up the foundation for a new Benghazi-type
situation.
Secretary
of State John Kerry discussed increased U.S. backing for the Syrian
rebels in a meeting with Qatar's prime minister. Qatar is the country
cooperating with the United States in supplying weapons to the Muslim
Brotherhood forces, the best organized militias, in Syria. Yet beyond
this supposed cooperation, in reality Qatar is a headache for real
Middle East moderates because it often sides with radical Islamist
forces including Iran. Qatar is not giving weapons to the Syrian
Brotherhood because it likes America but because it wants the
Brotherhood to win. In Obama Administration parlance this is a good
thing since that helps the “moderate” Brotherhood as opposed to the
radical Salafists.
Kerry said:
"We did discuss the question of the ability to try to guarantee that
it's going to the right people and to the moderate Syrian
opposition coalition."
Consider that sentence:
--Who
are "the right people?" The Obama Administration considers the Muslim
Brotherhood and several dozen radical Islamist (Salafist) groups to be
the "right people" qualified to receive weapons. Almost all of these
groups defended the al-Qaida militia against a U.S. boycott. According
to information from U.S. government sources, the number of actual
moderate groups that American experts think can be counted on is a small
proportion, perhaps amounting to 10 or 20 percent of the whole.
--Since
arms are already being supplied in large quantities are they in fact
going to the right people, considering that there were some real
problems with this procedure in Afghanistan and Libya?
--Kerry
did not refer to moderates in the Syrian opposition
coalition but implied that the coalition itself is moderate. That’s not
true. The armed opposition is largely led by the Brotherhood and
Salafists; the political arm of the opposition is largely led by the
Brotherhood.
Then, Kerry said
something even more remarkably troubling because it reflected willful
ignorance or indifference to arming radical anti-American Islamists. In
the words of the New York Times:
“Kerry
said the Obama administration had gained new confidence in recent
months that the Syrian opposition coalition could minimize the risk that
weapons would fall into hostile hands. He said there was no need for
the U.S. to provide arms now because other nations were already sending
enough.”
Hostile hands? They are
deliberately and consciously sending these weapons to
hostile hands! Presumably, he is hinting at al-Qaida. Well, one group
out of about 40 Islamist militias is al-Qaida. Are the other dozens of
anti-Western, antisemitic, anti-Christian groups thus okay?
Again,
there are relative moderates in the opposition. Politically there are
also liberals, leftists, defected army officers (radical nationalists
who now seem moderate compared to the Islamists), and Kurdish
nationalists. Yet the Kurdish group running northeastern Syria now is a
Marxist-oriented cult that's part of the Turkey-based, terrorist PKK.
How
much more visible could the developing mess be? Have no doubt that
there are some senior career officials in the State and Defense
departments who are horrified. Yet despite the current policy's serious
problems and visibly dangerous outcomes there is no major debate about
these points. As we saw with Iran, the Oslo peace process,
and more recently with Egypt, the canoe is heading toward the waterfall
and the only argument is over how fast to paddle.
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click
here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies,http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=t713636933%22
No comments:
Post a Comment