There are no good sides in the Syrian conflict. The Free Syrian Army, formed by officers and soldiers who refused to turn their guns on civilians, has all but disbanded primarily because promised US support failed to manifest. FSA commanders were reportedly forced to ration bullets while the pleas of Kurdish forces for heavy weapons were ignored.
It’s unknown who the US-backed moderate rebels are because those groups and their leaders haven’t been named, although Obama accuses Russia of bombing them. Interestingly, not a single western reporter has had the temerity to ask the US president and other officials for that information during press conferences.
The year-old US-led bombing campaign targeting the Daesh failed to make a difference because, clearly, it was meant to contain the head choppers rather than to destroy them; they and other dodgy groups were viewed as a necessary evil to prevent Assad’s forces gaining ground. President Obama scotched the idea of deploying US ground troops and expressed his belief that the fight against Daesh would take years if not decades.
And as for Obama’s $500,000 strategy to train and arm “moderates,” now binned as an abject failure following a US general’s testimony to a Senate Committee to the effect, just four or five remain. Their ‘Made in the USA’ weapons are now in the hands of radicals. Instead, the US says rebels currently on the ground will be supported, including Kurdish fighters, the very same that have been the targets of Turkish air strikes!
Then into the fray comes Russia, like a fox in a henhouse throwing US plans into disarray. There is no doubt President Putin means business. Russian planes and cruise missiles have destroyed more terrorist camps and bomb-making facilities in a few weeks than the US did in over 12 months. President Obama has never looked so weak; he says Putin’s mission in Syria is a sign of Russia’s weakness, but few US lawmakers and journalists are buying that.
These are just a few of the unflattering headlines: “Syria is Obama’s Watergate” (New York Post). Fox News asks on its website, “How to deal with the utter collapse of Obama’s Syria-Iraq strategy?” The Huffington Post describes the situation as “Obama’s Syrian disaster” and “Obama to blame for Russia’s build-up in Syria,” asserts The Hill.
Yes, Putin’s aim was to rescue the Assad regime at a moment in time when the enemy was at the gates and the Syrian Army battle-fatigued. But this was no altruistic intervention. Russia is out to protect its deep water naval base on the Mediterranean, is keen to show-off its military prowess — and, most importantly, to expand its geopolitical influence over the Middle East.
Putin has asked the US to partner Russia in its efforts and to share intelligence. The US president has declined on both counts and is believed to be mulling withdrawing from the conflict altogether. He’s said there will be no US-Russia proxy war and, moreover, he can’t call for more anti-Russia sanctions since Russia was invited-in by a regime that holds the Syrian seat in the UN General Assembly.
NATO, on the other hand, is flexing its muscles warning Russia’s air force against breaches of Turkish airspace and the UK is set to deploy its “Trident” nuclear deterrent system for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
US presidential hopeful, the infamous Donald Trump, is cheering on Russia taking a simplistic view. “If you look at Syria, Russia wants to get rid of ISIS (Daesh). We want to get rid of ISIS. Maybe let Russia do it; let them get rid of ISIS. What the hell do we care?”
At a micro level, Trump’s message sounds like common sense, but supposing Putin’s campaign succeeds in cleansing Syria of terrorists, where does that leave America’s role in the region? And what’s more to the point the geopolitical deckchairs will be rearranged to the detriment of those Arab states, which to an extent consider the US as their ally.
If America packs up and runs, how can its Arab allies count on the US to defend them against aggressors? Iraq’s government, for instance, has already stated it would be open to sending Russia an invitation to cleanup its own mess. How long would it be before other besieged countries made similar requests?
The core of the problem for many Arab states, besides wanting Assad gone on the grounds he has too much blood on his hands, is Iran’s hegemonic design and meddling in the regime. Put simply, the Iranians and its proxy militia Hezbollah aren’t in it out of friendship. If Assad stays, which he might, once the opposition loses all leverage, he will be more than just a stooge of Russian-Iran arrangement and that won’t bode well for Syria’s hitherto secular governance or for Iran’s Arab neighbors.
Looming on the horizon is a Russian bloc comprising Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and the newly-enriched and emboldened Iran courtesy of Obama’s championing of the Iran nuclear deal that is about to release $100 billion into Tehran’s coffers.
Obama could have made a difference years ago, but instead his hack-handed approach has left America’s regional allies in the lurch and has created a void that his opportunistic Russian counterpart has now filled. There is no crystal ball to predict the future. The losers are the Syrian people, who when this is over will be left to put back the pieces of their ravaged country for decades to come.
—
In this big power game of chess, Syrians seeking the kind of life most of us take for granted are pawns.
