Bashar al-Assad of Syria |
By Alan Caruba
One has to have some sympathy for
those in the CIA or the White House folks charged with telling the President
what has been going on in Syria since 2011 when the opposition to Bashar
al-Assad’s dictatorship turned into a fighting war. It must have looked and felt
like playing with a Rubics cube where the competing groups and militias kept
changing all the time.
In his book, “Inside Syria”, Reese
Erlich, a Peabody Award-winning journalist and author of four books on foreign
policy, has a chapter devoted to the way the Syrian revolt took shape. “The
antigovernment demonstrations began in the southern city of Daraa in March
2011.”
Erlich reports that they began after
police arrested several pre-teen school children for writing anti-regime
graffiti on the walls of a school. Being Syria, they were beaten and tortured.
More than 600 protesters confronted the local governor demanding the injured
children be let free. Security forces attacked the group and killed two of the
protesters. This is in keeping with the Middle Eastern mentality and culture,
something Americans, accustomed to having peaceful demonstrations, have
difficulty comprehending.
“By mid-March demonstrations broke out
in Damascus and other parts of the country” because the Arab Spring had let
loose a vast feeling of discontent and opposition in a number of nations and the
Assad regime was, to put it mildly, unpopular. It didn’t help that “Assad
cracked down mercilessly on peaceful protesters” opening fire with live
ammunition. Security forces arrested and tortured anyone suspected of
participating in the protest.
It is necessary to understand that it
is difficult to organize Syrians or other Middle Easterners under the best or
worst of conditions and that explains why Americans following events can be
forgiven for trying to figure out who was doing what. That includes our
intelligence community.
“Local Coordinating Committees
developed spontaneously in many cities as mostly young activists created
grassroots groups unaffiliated with the traditional opposition. They were united
on the need to overthrow Assad, hold free elections, and establish a
parliamentary system with civil liberties.”
It only took from March 2011 to July
for defectors from Assad’s army to announce formation of the Free Syrian Army
(FSA), followed on both sides by targeted assassinations.
For many years the Muslim Brotherhood
seemed to be the most influential opposition group, but it was led by an older
generation that was surprised by the events led by young Syrians. “Brotherhood
leaders had cultivated extensive ties internationally, particularly with the
Islamist government of Turkey. Those leaders became major players in the
formation of yet another group, the Syrian National Council, (SNC) based in
Istanbul. Suffice to say that there are many secular, non-religious, Muslims in
the Middle East and those in Syria were not inclined to believe anything the
Brotherhood's SNC had to say.
The Obama administration had a problem
figuring out who to support in the developing civil war. They opted for the Free
Syrian Army, as did Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, but it was reluctant to
provide arms with which to wage a war against Assad. By the spring of 2012, the
FSA was asking for shoulder-fired missiles capable of bringing down aircraft and
our CIA said no, fearing they would fall into the wrong hands which in Syria’s
case could be virtually any other group.
Another group was Jaysh al-Islam (Army
of Islam), “formed from the September 2013 merger of dozens of smaller militias,
mostly in the Damascus area.” They were Islamists preferring Sharia law and they
flew the black flag of jihad. By the end of 2013 they helped form the Islamic
Front. To make things more confusing there was another group, Ahrar al-Sham, one
of the largest militias in Syria and their aim was a Sunni Islamic
state.
In November 2013, al-Sham joined with
other conservative groups and they opposed the Syrian Free Army and the Syrian
Military Council, along with the al Qaeda affiliated groups of al-Nusra and the
Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Confused? Who wouldn’t be?
Suffice to say al-Nusra was devoted to
creating an Islamic state ruled by the Koran. In December 2012, the U.S. State
Department put al-Nusra on its list of terrorist organizations because of its
ties to al Qaeda, but it turned out that an even more extreme group existed,
calling itself the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). It was this group
that announced it would lead an Islamic State in the area seized from Syria and
Iraq.
ISIS is so extreme that in February
2014 Ayman al-Zawahri, the al Qaeda successor to bin Laden, cut ties to
ISIS.
The U.S. and a handful of coalition
partners are currently bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In time the U.S. will
have to put ground troops into the area to root out and kill ISIS.
Barack Obama has become a war
President thanks to the chaos he created by removing U.S. troops from Iraq in
2011 and to the Arab Spring that swept over nations whose populations wanted to
be rid of dictators like Bashar Assad.
This will not likely end
soon.
(c) Alan Caruba, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment