Fareed Zakaria is wrong. And it isn't the conventional wisdom, it was the elephant that hasn't got into the room for the last two years.
"The Obama administration’s decision to seek $500 million to train and fund elements of the Syrian opposition has been greeted with bipartisan support in Washington. The general consensus is that, if the administration had done this three years ago, the situation in Syria would not have turned into a sectarian civil war. But this conventional wisdom is wrong."
The proposal isn't to Do Something, it is a concrete proposal to arm the rebels.
"The administration is caving in to the classic Washington desire to “do something” in the face of a terrible situation without any clear sense as to whether it would improve things or make matters worse."
Radical Christians like John Brown and Thomas Jefferson have been the core of the American Revolution from the very beginning, centuries ago.
"In fact, radical Islamists have been the core of the opposition to the Assad regime from the very beginning, decades ago."
So the régime has always been quite murderous.
"An armed Islamist insurgency killed more than 300 supporters of the regime in Aleppo alone. Assad, in turn, ordered crackdowns that killed some 2,000 Islamist opponents."
So the régime has always been quite murderous.
“They opened the gates of a cell block for us. Six or seven of us entered and killed all those we found inside, some 60 or 70 people in all. I must have gunned down 15 myself. ... Altogether some 550 of those Muslim Brother bastards must have been killed.”
So the régime has always been quite murderous. The New York Times* gives figures of 90 dead and 135 injured for that Damascus bomb. Wikipedia** gives estimates of between 10,000 and 40,000 for the Hama massacre. I would think it more appropriate to call Assad's the terror campaign.
"The Islamists’ terror campaign spread, moving even to Damascus, where in November 1981 they exploded a car bomb in the city center that killed 200 people and wounded 500. Then, in 1982, came the uprising and the gruesome massacre in the town of Hama, where between 10,000 and 20,000 people — including women and children — were slaughtered by government troops."
Since then the régime has tortured, raped and murdered in exponentially increasing quantity as people have risen in revolt against it. The Muslim Brotherhood seemed to have given up the thought of armed resistance and came late to the revolution.
"Since then, the regime has organized itself for war against the Islamists and they, in turn, have been preparing for opportunities to wage war against the regime."
Divided by Orientalists who think Syrians can only be defined by their sect. There was no insurgency before 2011, so any opposition funding is a little irrelevant. There has been limited support for those fighting for their lives in Syria since then, nothing compared to the thousands of Iranians and Iraqis and shedloads of weaponry that have gone to support Assad's war on Syria.
"By the late 1970s, it was already divided into camps, largely defined by Islamism and sect. Outside powers in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran — have been funding, arming and training militants on both sides."
Because there has been no reliable source of arms for the Free Syrian Army, it has been up to brigades to fend for themselves. There are tens of thousands of fighters who still see themselves as FSA, or belong to groups that are moderately Islamist, but these are invisible to Zakaria. There were none of the radical groups a couple of years ago, and if the FSA had got or does get the weapons it needs there would be no need for them now. And the foreign fighters with the Islamic state that isn't part of the rebellion against Assad are mixed in with the rest.
"Today, according to James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, there are about 1,500 separate insurgent groups in Syria, with between 75,000 and 115,000 insurgents. In addition, there are 7,500 foreign fighters from neighboring countries. The strongest groups are all radical Islamist — the Islamic State, Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra."
Remember that if the FSA doesn't get any arms, there is no way an exiled opposition is going to exercise influence over them, or over those looking for actual assistance in fighting Assad.
"Remember that neighboring powers, like the Turkish government, spent months trying to establish a moderate Syrian opposition. I met with some of its leaders in Istanbul in 2012. They were genuinely liberal and democratic people. Unfortunately these people barely had contact with, let alone influence over, the actual groups fighting in Syria."
Finding moderate insurgent groups is going fine so far.***
"But now, Washington is going to “vet” this vast, dispersed opposition of 1,500 groups and find moderates. Good luck."
Dumbass. The Islamic State doesn't fight against Assad. And a change in Damascus has been America's stated goal, but it actions have been far more to preserve Assad up to now.
"The complexity of Washington’s task can be seen in the American attitude toward the Islamic State. When the group battles the Maliki government in Iraq, it is a deadly foe and must be ruthlessly attacked. But when it crosses the (now-nonexistent) border between Iraq and Syria and battles the Assad regime, it is aligned with America’s stated goal of regime change in Damascus."
They fought Assad to a standstill, with light weapons against tanks and helicopters. Anti-aircraft weapons would have stopped the Syrian bombing, and meant there would not be millions of refugees. Only massive foreign assistance has saved the régime so far, it would be gone if there was any sort of equivalence in war materiel.
"With this history in mind, it is difficult to believe that three years ago a modest American intervention of arms and training would have changed the trajectory of events in Syria."
"But can anyone now believe that a modest American intervention is going to find genuine democrats in the maelstrom, help them win against Assad and also the radicals, and stabilize Syria?"
The help - the word intervention blurs the line between an invasion and empowerment through arms and training - might need to be greater now that America has sat on its hands for so long, but it is ironic to deny Syrians a future because you don't think they can be proper democrats.
"But can anyone now believe that a modest American intervention is going to find genuine democrats in the maelstrom, help them win against Assad and also the radicals, and stabilize Syria?"
No.
"Or is Washington’s new activism more likely to throw fuel onto a raging fire?"
"The Obama administration’s decision to seek $500 million to train and fund elements of the Syrian opposition has been greeted with bipartisan support in Washington. The general consensus is that, if the administration had done this three years ago, the situation in Syria would not have turned into a sectarian civil war. But this conventional wisdom is wrong."
The proposal isn't to Do Something, it is a concrete proposal to arm the rebels.
"The administration is caving in to the classic Washington desire to “do something” in the face of a terrible situation without any clear sense as to whether it would improve things or make matters worse."
Radical Christians like John Brown and Thomas Jefferson have been the core of the American Revolution from the very beginning, centuries ago.
"In fact, radical Islamists have been the core of the opposition to the Assad regime from the very beginning, decades ago."
So the régime has always been quite murderous.
"An armed Islamist insurgency killed more than 300 supporters of the regime in Aleppo alone. Assad, in turn, ordered crackdowns that killed some 2,000 Islamist opponents."
So the régime has always been quite murderous.
“They opened the gates of a cell block for us. Six or seven of us entered and killed all those we found inside, some 60 or 70 people in all. I must have gunned down 15 myself. ... Altogether some 550 of those Muslim Brother bastards must have been killed.”
So the régime has always been quite murderous. The New York Times* gives figures of 90 dead and 135 injured for that Damascus bomb. Wikipedia** gives estimates of between 10,000 and 40,000 for the Hama massacre. I would think it more appropriate to call Assad's the terror campaign.
"The Islamists’ terror campaign spread, moving even to Damascus, where in November 1981 they exploded a car bomb in the city center that killed 200 people and wounded 500. Then, in 1982, came the uprising and the gruesome massacre in the town of Hama, where between 10,000 and 20,000 people — including women and children — were slaughtered by government troops."
Since then the régime has tortured, raped and murdered in exponentially increasing quantity as people have risen in revolt against it. The Muslim Brotherhood seemed to have given up the thought of armed resistance and came late to the revolution.
"Since then, the regime has organized itself for war against the Islamists and they, in turn, have been preparing for opportunities to wage war against the regime."
Divided by Orientalists who think Syrians can only be defined by their sect. There was no insurgency before 2011, so any opposition funding is a little irrelevant. There has been limited support for those fighting for their lives in Syria since then, nothing compared to the thousands of Iranians and Iraqis and shedloads of weaponry that have gone to support Assad's war on Syria.
"By the late 1970s, it was already divided into camps, largely defined by Islamism and sect. Outside powers in the Middle East — Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran — have been funding, arming and training militants on both sides."
Because there has been no reliable source of arms for the Free Syrian Army, it has been up to brigades to fend for themselves. There are tens of thousands of fighters who still see themselves as FSA, or belong to groups that are moderately Islamist, but these are invisible to Zakaria. There were none of the radical groups a couple of years ago, and if the FSA had got or does get the weapons it needs there would be no need for them now. And the foreign fighters with the Islamic state that isn't part of the rebellion against Assad are mixed in with the rest.
"Today, according to James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, there are about 1,500 separate insurgent groups in Syria, with between 75,000 and 115,000 insurgents. In addition, there are 7,500 foreign fighters from neighboring countries. The strongest groups are all radical Islamist — the Islamic State, Ahrar al-Sham and Jabhat al-Nusra."
Remember that if the FSA doesn't get any arms, there is no way an exiled opposition is going to exercise influence over them, or over those looking for actual assistance in fighting Assad.
"Remember that neighboring powers, like the Turkish government, spent months trying to establish a moderate Syrian opposition. I met with some of its leaders in Istanbul in 2012. They were genuinely liberal and democratic people. Unfortunately these people barely had contact with, let alone influence over, the actual groups fighting in Syria."
Finding moderate insurgent groups is going fine so far.***
"But now, Washington is going to “vet” this vast, dispersed opposition of 1,500 groups and find moderates. Good luck."
Dumbass. The Islamic State doesn't fight against Assad. And a change in Damascus has been America's stated goal, but it actions have been far more to preserve Assad up to now.
"The complexity of Washington’s task can be seen in the American attitude toward the Islamic State. When the group battles the Maliki government in Iraq, it is a deadly foe and must be ruthlessly attacked. But when it crosses the (now-nonexistent) border between Iraq and Syria and battles the Assad regime, it is aligned with America’s stated goal of regime change in Damascus."
They fought Assad to a standstill, with light weapons against tanks and helicopters. Anti-aircraft weapons would have stopped the Syrian bombing, and meant there would not be millions of refugees. Only massive foreign assistance has saved the régime so far, it would be gone if there was any sort of equivalence in war materiel.
"With this history in mind, it is difficult to believe that three years ago a modest American intervention of arms and training would have changed the trajectory of events in Syria."
"But can anyone now believe that a modest American intervention is going to find genuine democrats in the maelstrom, help them win against Assad and also the radicals, and stabilize Syria?"
The help - the word intervention blurs the line between an invasion and empowerment through arms and training - might need to be greater now that America has sat on its hands for so long, but it is ironic to deny Syrians a future because you don't think they can be proper democrats.
"But can anyone now believe that a modest American intervention is going to find genuine democrats in the maelstrom, help them win against Assad and also the radicals, and stabilize Syria?"
No.
"Or is Washington’s new activism more likely to throw fuel onto a raging fire?"
No comments:
Post a Comment