Collective Failure Sees Syria Burning

The Syrian Free Army is not organised and powerful to stand against Assad's forces

When the protests took off in January 2011 in Syria, no one thought that the opposition to the government would take so much time to bear fruit. It started as a peaceful protest but soon took a wrong turn and became violent. Resistance against the Assad government, along with sectarian violence, has seen city after city being attacked and it seems that human life is the ready casualty. According to estimates by the United Nations (UN) at least 10,000 people have been killed and scores more have been injured and displaced since the protests against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad started.

US Inaction

The economic slowdown since 2008 and the costly misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan have made the US realise that it can no longer go about its old ways. The US has pulled out of Iraq and has set a timetable for its exit from Afghanistan. Given the scenario, it would not want to engage its troops in another mission on foreign soil.

Washington is like a cat that is extremely cautious after having stepped water. Only a cat that has lost its mind will step into a bowl of boiling water. The presidential election in November is another reason why the US could be exercising extreme caution.

Russian Obstacle

Probably, the biggest hindrance for any meaningful UN resolution on Syria is the stand taken by Russia. Russia has strong military, economic and political ties with Syria and does not want to relinquish relations with its sole ally in the region.

The Kremlin is banking on the probability that by assisting Assad it can help the government gain control and that things will get back to normal.

What the Kremlin does not seem to understand is that the longer the unrest continues the slimmer the chances of Assad regaining control are, and prolonged conflict will only strengthen the Islamists. For the Islamists Russia is the bete noire.

What has not helped is the recent accusation by the Obama administration that the Kremlin was arming Damascus with helicopters. The US has been blowing hot and cold over its remarks on Russia. After US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia of providing Syria with assault helicopters, the US State Department ate humble pie saying that the helicopters were ‘refurbished’ and belonged to the Assad regime. Countering the US attack on Russia, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Moscow was not arming Syria to attack peaceful demonstrations but at the same time Washington was giving riot control gear to regimes in the region — hinting at alleged US covert efforts to help tackle growing protests in Bahrain.

Rise of Islamists

The so-called Arab Spring sparked off in Tunisia. From there it spread to Egypt, Bahrain and Libya, and by the time to gripped Syria it had brought down a few regimes and was taking a form that was not conducive for the world powers in the region.

Political observers look at the ‘Arab Spring’ as a development which none — neither the people nor the governments— had anticipated to take its present form.

By the time the wave of freedom and unrest spread to Syria, it was clear that the Islamist forces/groups, that were either kept at the margins or outside the system (thanks to the pro-West bend the fallen rulers had adopted in their countries over the years), had gained a foothold and were working their way to the heart of the system. The most prominent of these groups is the Muslim Brotherhood.

While analysts have been caught unawares by public acceptance and support base the Brotherhood has gained, what worries them is that the Brotherhood might enforce retrograde codes of conduct thereby enforcing a sort of ‘Talibanisation’ of the countries that are in a political flux. Even if one were to think that the Brotherhood is not much of a problem, what cannot be wished away is the possibility of the al-Qaeda gaining ground where there is a vacuum of power and order. The Assad government’s brutal use of force and the near helplessness of Western powers have left the people opposing the government on their own. In this time of need it is the Brotherhood and other Islamist groups that are extending a helping hand — Islamists have been pouring in money and many people are turning to them for arms and protection.

In Syria, while the resistance to Assad’s army was initially peaceful this changed once the protesters were attacked by the Syrian military.

While it has been almost impossible to ascertain the pattern and chronology of the attacks, the rebels started armed resistance after their non-violent demonstrations were targeted by Assad’s army. Many from the military defected and formed what is now called the Syrian Free Army.

It is speculated that there are western governments, including the US and other countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar that are arming the Syrian opposition — though not in a way to match Assad’s brutality.

Difficult Moves

Not much hope should rest on the peace plan that former UN general secretary Kofi Annan has been trying to resuscitate for some time now. That is a dead horse and no amount of goodwill will suffice. For a peace plan to work, the basic fact is that both sides in the conflict agree that there is a conflict/issue and express interest towards resolving their grievances. Here, the Assad regime maintains that it is a domestic problem being fanned by vested interests from outside the country. As for the Syrian opposition, it has evolved from a peaceful, well-meaning protest to a headless armed resistance that is assuming dangerous proportions with every passing day.

The best shot the West and Arab countries have is to get Russia to turn around and work towards stopping the bloodshed in Syria. However, that is easier said than done. Vladimir Putin is back as Russian president and a lot will depend on how Obama and Putin strike a chord.  The role of the Arab nations is important. It is to be seen if they have a plan for Syria in the event of Assad’s fall. Rooting for it without a far-sighted plan will only be a gift to the Islamist forces that thrive in such situations. Iran can also not be kept out of the picture for the simple fact that it is a powerful regional force and has considerable clout in Syria.

Address Flaws

The crisis in Syria is a reflection of one of the many problems that exposes the limitations of the UN and many other international agreements.  This is an apt instance to show the unflinching and enviable power the P5 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council) enjoys needs to be questioned.  If Russia and China had not objected to resolutions and other actions on the Syrian government, by now it is probable that things would have looked better in Syria. The crisis in Syria is a lesion and needs to be treated at the earliest.  However, the cause for it needs to be addressed and the required corrections made.
(This appeared in The New Indian Express on June 19, 2012)

As Uncle Sam Beats the Retreat from Iraq

In the euphoria of Libyan dictator-president Muammar Gaddafi being captured and killed by Libyan rebel forces on October 20, media houses around the world overlooked or underplayed a development in the Middle East. At a relatively toned down press briefing from the White House, the following day, US President Barack Obama announced that by December 31 all US troops would leave Iraq. Thus, by bringing to an end the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was strongly opposed by many of US’ allies including France and Germany, Obama has kept one of his poll promises. This is a decision that future analyst will observe as an important move that changed the way the world does politics because a pullout by US from Iraq has more than one implication and impact. So why did such a monumental announcement by Obama go under the radar of sorts? While the move was discussed widely in the United States, internationally the response it received was lukewarm. Perhaps it was intended to be so.

Politics of pullout

Obama’s announcement was criticised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney as a sign of weakness and an open invitation to Iraq’s neighbour Iran to fill in the vacuum. Romney while making these allegations is either exposing his political naivety for it was President Bush who signed the withdrawal in 2008, or it is political opportunism, a craft which needs a lot of honing.

For Obama it is a win-win deal in many ways. Firstly, as the 2012 presidential race heats up, the announcement is a brownie point for Obama. As of November 4, 49 per cent of Americans approve of the way he is handling his job; that’s a two per cent rise from the previous month. The spree of assassinations -- Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki and Muammar Gaddafi --- has assuaged the US public that the billions they have been spending has seen some fruition.

Secondly, the war on terror, waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, has bled the US in many ways – financially, perception-wise and human casualty. Financially, the wars have cost the US close to $2.5 trillion and this sum is entirely --- yes entirely --- on money borrowed. With no tax reforms and the war spending increasing US’ debt has shot through the roof. Perception-wise the US has lost footing within and outside the country. The number of people in the US who think that the wars are of a “choice” and not a “necessity”, to use Obama’s phrase to describe the Iraq and Afghanistan operations respectively, are on the rise. Americans also feel that these operations in the Middle East and other countries have only earned them the hatred of others. A good example would be Pakistan, which is a war ally. Despite Washington pouring in billions into the country, US is detested by the people and government of Pakistan. Recent reports from Iraq indicate that even groups that initially welcomed the US forces are happy to see the pullout. The human casualty, in the form of wounded --- physically and mentally – war veterans, is an expenditure that is going to grow on the US economy as years pass by. Economists fear that this will have a telling effect on the economy in the years ahead.

Thirdly, the US, while in theory actually pulls out, actually does not. While on the surface there is a pullout the US has worked out mechanisms through which it will have a sizable presence in the Iraq. Through the various embassies in Iraq US will be employing close to 20,000 personnel. This soldier pullout paves the way for the comeback of the ‘notorious’ contractors. Ted Wright, president of Blackwater (responsible for the Nisour Square Massacre in 2007) has expressed interest to do business in Iraq again. The US has signed arms deal with Iraq worth more than $10 billion. In the lieu of training and maintenance US personnel will be stationed in Iraq soil. Given all this, it is clear that the US has made sure that it maintains its presence in the country. After all Iraq is a major oil producing country and the revenue trade with Iraq can generate through development work is too lucrative for any country to forgo.

Middle East equation

To understand the political fluctuations and future developments in the Middle East it is essential to first understand the two predominant sects in Islam --- Sunni and Shia. Sunnis form roughly 85 per cent of the Muslims world over. The Middle East is predominantly Sunni but Iraq and Iran have Shias as the majority with a presence in Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. Saddam Hussein was heading a Sunni minority government in a Shia majority Iraq. He suppressed Shia and Kurd movements and Tehran was his bete noire. Other countries in the region thought of him as a good counterweight to an Iran that was getting assertive and threatening after the 1979 Iranian Revolution. The United States, by invading Iraq, ousting and hanging Saddam did in a year what Iran was trying to achieve for decades. Thus Washington was levelling Iraq as a playing field for Tehran.

‘Good’ neighbour

For all the tall talk done by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that “Iran should not miscalculate about our (US) commitment to Iraqis” analyst agree that Iran’s influence over Iraq cannot be stopped, and definitely not by any of the tactics the US has used till date.

While invading Iraq former President George Bush had planned to reform the country and turn it into the first true democratic country in the region with the hope that it would serve as a beacon to other countries to move towards democracy. However, the steps taken by the US to usher in this change went wrong from the beginning. America’s hand-picked Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government could get the required numbers last year only because it got the backing of Muqtada al-Sadr, who is a Shia with active backing from Tehran. Thus the democracy that the Washington propped up in Baghdad was on the stilts lent by Tehran.

However, there is a silver-lining as Iraqis, who have longed for democracy and have witnessed the developments in the neighbouring countries, have protested against the stand Maliki has taken on the uprising in Syria. Maliki has not criticised the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, who is an ally of Iran.

Pullout Panic

Of late there has been a call for attacking Iran for the threat it poses because of the nuclear weapons it has in its possession. A rattled Israel, which has not had good relations with Iran, is in the forefront with this call for attack. While it is a matter of concern that Tehran has a clandestine nuclear programme going on in the stealth, it is also a known fact, something akin to a public secret known to all. Russia has advised caution in approaching Iran.

It is understandable that Israel is worried that with US pulling out of Iraq, Iran will have a free run over there. Add to this the Arab Spring which is bringing traditional US favourites down and giving groups that are close to Tehran a chance to run these countries; not to mention the Gilad Shalit deal which has given the Hamas a boost. Thus a US pullout from Iraq can be said to be the trigger for this panic attack.
(This appeared as an Opinion in The New Indian Express on November 10)