Charlottesville, Virginia- After the violent crackdown against mostly peaceful protestors in March 2011 the Syrian opposition expanded and transformed from peaceful street protests to a growing number of armed militias.
Charlottesville, Virginia- After the violent crackdown against mostly peaceful protestors in March 2011 the Syrian opposition expanded and transformed from peaceful street protests to a growing number of armed militias.
This led to a full-fledged rebel movement of non-violent and violent components, which included some “radial jihadist” militias. The brutality of the Assad regime only intensified the resolve to bring it down. The government takes part in the propaganda war by asserting the need to unite the country “against terrorism,” which includes anyone against Assad and his violent state apparatus.
The expansion of the armed rebel militias and the acquisition of some radical Islamist groups added fuel to the fire behind Assad’s propaganda machine. In other words, when it comes to international intervention and militarily aiding the rebel groups fighting against him, there are some legitimate concerns about weapons ending up in the hands of violent factions of the opposition, which could only come back to haunt us like it did in the armed resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Secondly, the opposition movement also takes part in the propaganda war and must come to terms with the significant problems in its ranks.
As the International Crisis Group reasoned in its August 2012 Middle East Report:
The opposition has tended to downplay its less attractive characteristics: it blames rising sectarianism solely on the regime’s divisive tactics; dismisses increasingly religious, if not fundamentalist, overtones as reversible side-effects of the crisis; attributes armed groups’ alleged crimes to mere indiscipline; and shrugs off the still-limited but increasingly visible presence of jihadis and foreign fighters. There are logical reasons for all these tendencies to appear. There is no justification for belittling them. Failing to seriously address them now could haunt all Syrians later. The danger of widespread sectarian reprisals, indiscriminate killings and large-scale displacement is frighteningly real.
Syrian civilians are the victims of this never ending cycle of violence, and such death and destruction must come to an end. However at this moment anything resembling unilateral movements of “boots on the ground,” would not be a viable solution to actually ending the conflict and saving lives.
US military intervention and propaganda in the name of democracy crusades and for the sake of chemical weapons in Saddam Hussain’s Iraq discredited our policies in the region and made both Arabs and Americans (as well as the rest of the world) less willing to trust our intentions and engagement in the Middle East. Since the Assad regime has staunchly rejected compromise or human rights and has embarked on a policy of outright destruction, it is up to the opposition to find a way out of this conflict.
This means coming to terms with the radical groups within its factions and renouncing the path of fomenting sectarian tension and violent extremism. The allegation of chemical weapons use on civilians causes any human being to question a path of compromise and moderation, but the first step is pushing the UN investigators to do their job and be granted unfettered access to the sites in order to examine the evidence.
The problem with all of this is the fact that the Syrian rebel movement needs help because it is having a difficult time matching the firepower of Assad backed by Iran and Hezbollah fighters, with Russia and China supporting them at the United Nations. So many see this as a crucial moment in a crisis that will likely continue for several years. More recently U.S. military strategists have argued that the opposition is gaining ground around Damascus, and this, as the argument goes, may have been the destructive “logic” behind Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons in this area. The truth of this is difficult to decipher as the propaganda war marches on.
Pentagon officials were discussing possible military responses in the White House after the evidence of gas attacks surfaced on Wednesday, and according to The New York Times, “officials” said it “could range from a cruise missile strike to a more sustained air campaign against Syria.” According to CBS news “The officials also said U.S. intelligence agencies are now leaning to the conclusion that Syria did use chemical weapons,” while President Obama has described the allegations as a “big event of grave concern,” which necessitates a time table for responses from both the United States, European and Arab allies, and the United Nations.
Over the weekend Obama met with his national security team, and Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel admitted that they were examining military options. According to Aljazeera America defence department officials also discussed the addition of a fourth warship with ballistic missiles in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, though no specific orders have been given for launching them.
It is worthy to note that, to this day, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon is against arming the rebels and still promoting a diplomatic solution, even after the two failed attempts at negotiations through a UN envoy. Yet this stance did not prevent him from strongly affirming that “Any use of chemical weapons anywhere, by anybody, under any circumstances, would violate international law…Such a crime against humanity should result in serious consequences for the perpetrator.” While military options are being discussed by both Western and Arab allies to the opposition, President Obama continues to express his reservation about US involvement without proper international backing because of the array of international actors involved.
In the end, no matter how much we would like to believe that there is a simple way to end such senseless violence, the Syrian conflict does not offer such a scenario.
© Morocco World News. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, rewritten or redistributed
References:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/
http://news.sky.com/story/
