Alternative Insight
Neglected Options to the Syrian Crisis
NOTE: This article was prepared several days before the proposal to isolate Syria's chemical weapons and placed online just after the announcement.Deadly chemical weapons attacks against hapless civilians is a serious consideration and demands international attention. In the Syrian civil war, there is another serious consideration that solicits equal attention - foreign fighters from Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and what has been termed as Al-Qaeda in Iraq (foreigners who fight in Iraq), citizens from non-adjacent countries to Syria, have killed more civilians than chemical weapons attacks. The entrance of foreign combatantss into the conflict has extended the war and directly or indirectly provoked the Sarin gas attacks. President Obama has overlooked a compelling option - remove the reason for the cause and the effect will not re-occur.
Foreign "volunteers" have fought in several civil wars - the 1936-1939 Spanish civil war as an example. However, in most of these wars, foreign fighters fought to protect the rights of one of the major combatants or sought to prevent severe damage to their own interests. The foreign fighters in Syria are not fighting to protect the Syrian people or to support their grievances, which are more representative government and political freedoms. Nor will the outcome of the engagement damage their lives in their foreign lands. They are taking advantage of the strife for their own purposes - to create a fundamentalist Islamic state and reduce Syria's secular, Christian, Shi'a, Alawite and non- fundamentalist Muslims to unwilling subjects.
Militants from Iraq and Lebanon Shi'a populations have also crossed the borders to support the Assad regime. This is more understandable. Militants from adjacent states have a direct interest in the outcome of the battle - both Shi'a populations will be threatened if the present Syrian government is defeated. For Hezbollah, it will be a catastrophe.
The day that armed foreign fighters brought their radical ideology to Syria, the United States, which claims to be a fierce proponent of democracy and human rights, should have vigorously protested to the nations who have sponsored and equipped the foreign fighters. Deceived by a spurious friendship with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the United States conducts a counter-productive foreign policy that unwittingly defends terrorist actions and harms the security of the American people.
The deception occurs from U.S. foreign policy makers misconstruing friendship with those who do not contest U.S. actions and enemy with those who voice disapproval of them. The former use the "friendship" for their own purposes, regardless of effects on the U.S. public, and the latter attempt to protect themselves against U.S. adversity. What would happen if the U.S. State Department approached the authoritarian and extremely sectarian Gulf nations as neither friend nor antagonist but as an honest critic of their actions, while not interfering in their internal affairs? Nothing would change; just as China manages to gain resources, the U.S. will obtain the oil, maybe not directly from Aramco but from some oil distributor.
The same argument holds for relations with Iran and Syria, and throw in Hezbollah. Why treat then as enemies? None of these are threats to U.S. economic and domestic security. This suggestion brings smirks, guffaws and epithets from a thoughtless, warmongering and super-nationalist community, the same community that pushed the U.S. into the Vietnam and Iraq wars. Evidently they do not read history. Historical narratives contradict their controversial strategies.
The 1954 Geneva Conference produced the Geneva Accords, which stated that "Vietnam was to become an independent nation," with elections to choose a unified government to be held in July 1956, under international supervision. South Vietnam Prime Minister Ngô Ðình Diem, supported at that time by the United States, claimed that his newly created and illegally constituted South Vietnam was not a party to the convention, and canceled elections. In order to thwart North Vietnam, which was frustrated by Ngô Ðình Diem's actions, from uniting the entire country by force, President Johnson sought reasons to greatly increase U.S. military presence in the region. On August 2, 1964, the U.S. destroyer Maddox, coincidentally situated in the Gulf of Tonkin close to the North Vietnamese coast at the same time as a raid by South Vietnamese gunboats on that territory, was supposedly attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats. President Johnson accused the North Vietnamese of "open aggression on the high seas," and submitted to the U.S. congress a resolution that authorized him to take "all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." A bewilderingly compliant United States Senate approved the fateful resolution by an overwhelming 88-2 vote; only Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon and Ernest Gruening of Alaska voted against the measure.
Basing its policies on a "domino" theory (If Vietnam went communist all of southeast Asia would go communist.), need to retaliate to an attack on its warships in the Tonkin Gulf, and reinforced by the SEATO treaty (A pact signed by South East Asia members, which was primarily created to block communism in Southeast Asia), the U.S. made North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam its enemies and committed itself to prevent North Vietnam aggression from incorporating all of Vietnam into one communist nation.
What happened?
Vietnam became one nation under communist rule, the Tonkin Gulf Resolution proved to be based on a farce, the SEATO treaty disbanded in 1977, no "domino" effect existed, and no other southeast Asian nation has become communist. The death toll for this unnecessary war was horrific. Exact totals cannot be confirmed, but few would argue with these statistics.
The Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS) contains records of 58,220 U.S. military fatal casualties of the Vietnam War and 153,303 wounded.
An accepted total has 195,000-430,000 South Vietnamese civilians and 50,000-65,000 North Vietnamese civilians killed in the war.
Official US Department of Defense figures cite 950,765 communist forces killed in Vietnam from 1965 to 1974.In addition, post war and spill-over of the conflict to adjacent nations caused additional casualties
Vietnam's government claims that 400,000 people were killed or maimed as a result of after effects, and that 500,000 children were born with birth defects.
In the Cambodian civil war, 200,000-300,000 killed.
In the Laotian civil war, 20,000-300,000 killedMaking a corrupt South Vietnam a friend and communist North Vietnam an enemy, as opposed to being neutral and not interfering in their internal affairs, brought death to Americans, internal strife to the United States and vast destruction to South East Asia. If the U.S. did not approach the North's leader, Ho Chi Minh, as an enemy, the result would have been the same, except millions of lives, including American, would have been saved. What benefit was derived from making Ho Chi Minh into an enemy? And today, after all the unnecessary mayhem, the U.S. has cordial relations with Vietnam.
Expect similar results from U.S. Middle East policy. Remaining "friends" with corrupt Saudi Arabia and Gulf States and categorizing Iran, Syria and Hezbollah as enemies will only lead to the usual catastrophic U.S. foreign policy initiative Only lead or has led - after decades of bringing peace, stability and democracy to the Middle East, the region remains turbulent, unstable and authoritarian.A constructive foreign policy seeks coordination with nations that have the same objectives. In 2002, the U.S. objectives in going to war in Afghanistan coincided with Iran's objectives. Iran wanted secure borders with Afghanistan, free from entry by Al- Qaeda, the demise of the Sunni Taliban with whom it had constant quarrels, and a stable Afghanistan with which it could trade.
Iran tried reconciliation with the U.S. and offered assistance to a newly created Afghan government after the 9/11 tragedy. At the Tokyo donors conference in January 2002, the Iranians showed willingness to create a new Afghanistan by pledging $560 million worth of assistance, which is a large amount for a not-fully-developed country and almost equal to the amount the United States pledged at the same conference.
After the Northern Alliance Afghan troops played a significant role in driving the Taliban out of Kabul in November 2001, the alliance demanded 60 percent of the portfolios in an interim government and blocked agreement with other opposition groups. According to the U.S. envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Dobbins, Iran played a "decisive role" in persuading the Northern Alliance delegation to compromise its demands.
President Bush treated the Iranian initiatives with contempt, depriving the U.S. military engagement with funds and logistics that may have saved many lives, including Americans, that would have diminished Taliban power and advanced the credibility and strength of the Karzai government.
President Assad was only too willing to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Syria despised Saddam Hussein, wanted assistance in fighting its own internal Radical Islam, and desired a new Iraq with a Shi'a majority in control. Its objectives coincided with those of the U.S. military in Iraq, and Syria showed efforts to cooperate.
According to U.S. officials, after Sept.11, 2001, Syrian information was instrumental in catching militant Islamists around the world. "In July 2005, the Syrian government returned alleged Islamist terrorists to Saudi Arabia and Tunisia. In June 2006, Syria's state security forces and Islamists fought a gun battle in Damascus. The Syrian government cited the September 27, 2008 car bombing in Damascus, which killed seventeen people, as an indication that Islamist terrorists - in this case it named Fatah al-Islam - had targeted the country for its cooperation with U.S. efforts to strengthen security along its border with Iraq."
By not recognizing the significance of the Syrian initiative and by treating Assad as an enemy, President Bush invited the Syrians to disregard the Al-Qaeda fighters who hopped planes in Saudi Arabia, flew to Syria and crossed the border into Iraq to attack U.S. forces. Why would Assad use his limited resources to assist a nation that regarded him as an enemy? With just a little cooperation with Syria and much less hostility to its government, the border would have been more tightly controlled, U.S. military objectives would have been more easily achieved, and many casualties would have been prevented.
President Obama has overlooked his options - guide Middle East policies by their direct effects on the security of the United States and, if Assad promises to place his chemical weapons under supervision, work with other governments to remove the foreign fighters. Because the Syrian president denies use of these weapons, he will agree to the terms. If the foreign fighters are forced out of Syria and his military violates the agreement, then the western governments will be forced to protect their interests, which proceeds from a violation of a mutual pact. The legitimate rebels can then expect sufficient assistance to overcome the Assad regime. Will Assad want that to happen?alternativeinsight
september, 2013HOME PAGE MAIN PAGE 
No Need to Login to post a comment.
comments powered by Disqus