History tells us civil wars are usually resistant to outside solutions. Hate usually runs deep, and often many parties are involved with all of them having different interests, so that it is hard to satisfy every group. In Syria, Turkey supports a radical Islamist group to gain influence against the Kurdish minority. Those who fight in Syria are the Islamic rebels; they are not American allies; and they are not going to defend American national interests. The war in Syria is Turkey’s war, and Turkey has on its hands the blood of innocent people in Syria. Turkey is supporting the opposition groups to topple the Assad regime; furthermore, Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia, is well equipped militarily and well armed, and as such they are capable of deterring an attack. Since they have the capability, why don’t they fight with the Assad regime?
We know this is not about bringing democracy to the Middle East, because Turkey is not a democratic country, Saudi Arabia is not a democratic country, and none of the Arab countries are democratic. We also know that America is still a superpower and has national interests everywhere. However, supporting a military strike on Syria is not an American national interest nor is Syria a threat to American national security. We know Syria is a tragedy, but who created the tragedy? If Turkey and countries with Sunni Arabs in the majority did not support the opposition groups and did not open the door to all the radical groups going there, we would not have as many people die as we have had until now. True, the Assad regime is not an American ally, but who is America’s ally in the Middle East? Will ousting the Assad regime bring stability and promote a more democratic regime, or will it bring more hate and chaos in the region?
The US Secretary of State accused former President Bush of lying to the American people about going to war in Iraq, but John Kerry himself lied to Congress about the role radical Islam, especially Al Qaeda, plays in the Syrian war. Americans do not want a war that has nothing to do with a threat to America or with American national interest. Syria is a tragedy, but it is not an American tragedy, and Congress should veto a war with Syria. Getting rid of Assad will not solve the problem but will create more problems, and the replacement regime will absolutely put the blame on America again. The scenario will be a repetition of the one when Bush got rid of Saddam and freed Iraq from its cruel dictator and then a man threw his shoe at Bush, a hateful and offensive gesture in that culture. It will be the same as in Libya when the US saved the Libyan people from Qaddafi’s brutal regime, and then they killed the American ambassador and his elite forces.
I don’t think Assad has the ability or power to attack America including with chemical weapons. The US should use military force only when American national security interests are at stake, when the strategic objectives are clear, when the benefits are likely to pay for the costs, when they have the support of most of the American public, and when they have an exit strategy. This situation has none of these. Each missile costs thousands of dollars, and this money could be spent at home. A sensible American foreign policy is dead. Instead, the wrong US policy has caused growing conflict between a secular government and the Islamists in the region. For example, President Obama has ignored Prime Minister Erdogan’s heavy-handed effort toward the Kurds and Turkey’s abolishment of free speech. Why would he overlook Turkey’s anti-democratic policies and go after a regime enflamed by Turkey?
I do not think the Russian and American deal will work either because the West, including America, as well as Turkey, and the Arab countries have already decided that Assad should go. Since they do not have domestic and international support, they are trying all kinds of excuses to convince the world that the Assad regime did use chemical weapons.
I don’t have much faith in the UN organization; the UN does not have any credibility to bring peace and order. Although the UN General Secretary said that Assad did use chemical weapons. the UN chemical inspectors have not made a final decision about whether Assad used chemical weapons or not. However, the UN chemical inspectors’ report concluded that yes, chemical weapons have been used, but nobody knows conclusively who used them. Russia and the United States in their talks in Switzerland have reached a groundbreaking deal on a framework to eliminate Syrian chemical weapons. The West and America want Syria to submit a comprehensive list of its chemical weapons stockpile within one week and allow international inspectors to be on the ground before November. John Kerry, however, also said America does not recognize the Assad regime anymore, and if Assad does not accept our conditions, then he will face consequences, which is most likely war. Basically the West and America are asking for Assad to surrender. The question is if Assad does turn over the chemical weapons, then what will the West and America guarantee Assad? The West is essentially telling Assad to give us your weapons, and then we will attack you later. We know for sure that the US, the UK, and France will come up with a very tough resolution that would include all of the deals that Assad cannot comply with, and his lack of compliance and violation of the resolution will automatically provide the reason to use force. I don’t think it is going to be the turning point that most of the commentators have suggested that it might be.
Dr. Aland Mizell is President of the MCI and a regular contributor to The Kurdistan Tribune, Kurdishaspect.com, Mindanao Times and Kurdish Media.You may email the author at:aland_mizell2@hotmail.com