Two Obama Administration Scandals on Syria?
What do they need American “coordination” for? What does the word “coordination” mean? I presume it means that the Obama administration, absolutely clueless about what to do regarding Syria, simply wants to take credit for others’ actions. It is part of the pre-election spin about what a great job Obama is doing.
Yet there is another problem here, a potentially devastating one. Who is getting the weapons? There are different people and groups in the Syrian opposition. Some are Salafists who feel comfortable with al-Qaida; some are Brotherhood men; some are ex-Syrian army officers, professionals and relatively apolitical; and some are liberals who really want democracy.
Whoever gets these weapons will be tremendously empowered. So what’s to say that the arms being “coordinated” by the United States aren’t going to revolutionary Islamists? While this is a complex subject, there is information that these arms supplies up until now have not been sufficiently discriminatory toward moderates and away from Islamist radicals. We will know more in the weeks to come if we can see and identify which opposition groups in what parts of Syria have become better armed.
And if it comes out that the U.S. government is “coordinating” the arming of such people with weapons — as it is already helping their political counterparts in the SNC — wouldn’t that be a tremendous scandal?
Let’s be clear here: A proper U.S. policy would help moderate Syrians overthrow the Assad dictatorship and make sure weapons went to the best elements in the Free Syrian Army’s decentralized forces. Such a policy would make sure to deny money, weapons, and power to the Islamists and Salafists, who are proportionately far weaker in Syria than in Egypt.
Obama policy follows the worst possible course. It minimizes U.S. help to the revolution while at the same time ensuring that a disproportionately large amount goes to Islamists.
In a nutshell.
Best possible outcome in Syria (and Lebanon)is partition (not federation), along with humane population exchanges. The Christians and Alawites should have coastal states, the Druze the Golan, the Kurds the northeast, the Shiites should be resettled in tri-partitioned Iraq in exchange for the remaining Christians in that unfortunate country, and the Sunni Arabs and Turkmen can have the rest of Syria. Golden opportunity to stabilize this sector of the broader region for generations.
Probably won’t happen though; greed, interests, religions etc, will get in the way as usual.
“probably won’t happen.” So right. If the Islamists were reasonable, any number of positive live and let live solutions with the Israelis, Kurds, Christians and other minority groups could gain support. Having the MB in charge, or Turkey for that matter, torpedoes all such ideas.
A few corrections:
- The Druze should get at least both Jabel al-Druze (in Syria) and the Golan, and form an independent statelet with strong ties and a defense pact with Israel (it’ll be too small and weak to defend on their own, and it’s strategically vital for Israel not to have an enemy sitting on the Golan, so a defense pact makes a lot of sense). The 20,000 or so Israelis living on the Golan should be allowed to stay there (if they want to) as a minority with equal rights and a double citizenship. Israeli Druze should also be allowed a double citizenship (I’m sure the overwhelming majority of Israeli Druze would prefer to stay in Israel).
- The Kurds should get a state on the Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria. The future of the Kurdish regions in Turkey and Iran would be determined later according to the behavior of those states.
- The Christians should get both Lebanon plus some part of Syria (together with the Alawites and Lebanese Druze) and Assyria, that is a tiny state in what is now Iraq. Most of the territory of the Assyrian state is now claimed also by the Kurds. The Kurds will need the support of the West to be able to defend their territory. This support should be conditioned on an agreement with the Assyrians that will allocate the latter a territory to form their own state. The Kurds will not necessarily reject it. I used to read a couple of Kurdish forums in English. Assyrians used to pop in from time to time and they discussed this possibility, including maps of the possible future states (the Assyrian state will be tiny compared with the Kurdish state). These forums don’t necessarily represent the average Kurd, but at least the Kurds there seemed quite reasonable.
- Of course in the Lebanese-Syrian case the Christian-Alawite territory can be divided between them like you suggest, if that’s what they want, but I’m not sure it’s necessary in order to establish an internal peace. Generally speaking, Christians, Alawites and Druze can get along reasonably well because neither want to force their religious laws on others and neither fantasize about a global/vast empire. It may even be a democracy. The point is they could be freed from the Islamist zeal and able to defend themselves. What they do with the territory, if they divide it or not, should be left for them to decide.
I agree any such plan will remain on the drawing board. However, if the entire region at some point deteriorates into a chaotic religious war the Kurds may benefit from it if they keep their eyes on the prize of national self-determination rather than join the jihad.
Thank you for your comment it elaborates on the spirit of mine. I wished to be brief and didn’t mention the full extent of what should be Druze territory, specific borders, or the final disposition of Kurdistan. I fully agree with your clarifications.
Unfortunately the most likely outcome of the current misery in Syria, soon to spill over full scale into Lebanon as well, will probably end up being more emigration of the remaining Christian populations of the region. It seems as if no great power is interested in the fate of those long suffering populations anymore.
For the time being it seems the Sunni Arabs (Saudi Arabia/Qatar etc.), with the influence their oil wealth can purchase, are slowly accomplishing their aims of broader and deeper Islamization. This, in (unwitting?) collusion with the morally weak West.
It would be apt to paraphrase Lenin on capitalists and rope if I were a Mullah.
And what shall become of the NBC assets? Especially those Saddam spirited out of Iraq prior to March 2003?
“Obama policy follows the worst possible course. It minimizes U.S. help to the revolution while at the same time ensuring that a disproportionately large amount goes to Islamists.”
Sounds to me like the first part is at least good. Zero would be better. We should not be helping any of the followers of Mohammad. To do so is just continuing insanity. We should return to a Reagan foriegn policy and stop all this islamic nation building as it has been repeatedly demonstrated as being Operation Enduring Insanity.
“Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.” – Ronald Reagan
Why do I get this sick feeling that the Obama administration really believes the nonsense James Clapper said about the Muslim Brotherhood not being a threat to this nation and to the West in general? I’m betting that Obama thinks that the Muslim Brotherhood honestly represents some sort of secular government that will bring order to these Muslim nations. Obama just doesn’t get that the Muslim Brotherhood simply represents a form of Muslim Fundamentalism that will make what’s going on in Iran and Saudi Arabia look like a joke. If people like Obama and Clapper really think that the Muslim Brotherhood will bring democracy to Syria, they should simply take a look at what’s going on in Egypt. All Obama is doing is allowing yet another country drift into the arms of radical Islam. But the Syrians will be trading one tyrant for another.
With the revelations from the bigot J. Wright of Barry’s ‘muslimism’ (either he was or is, maybe has been all along, who knows? But he definitely SYMPATHIZES with every muslim he encounters in the world)does anyone still believe that he will oppose a muslim movement? Really? Given the choice of muslim vs non-muslim, he has NEVER chosen the non-muslim: see “Israel”. God help us until we can throw these criminals out in November, because we sure as hell do not have an opposition party with any guts: see Pussilanious Boehner. But, hell, its election time so Boehner should start morphing back into something of a conservative until the elections pass.
The 0 administration will be with us until 1/20/2013; Reid, with a little luck, will depart two weeks earlier. Until that time, the Arab Muslims will do all they can to “win” with the support of their brother in Washington.
@ 1. jpets has said it perfectly
Guys, quit knocking Obambi, can’t you see he’s got his hands full reinstating the Caliphate? It takes a lot of work to get all those feuding Muslims together. If he succeeds he can get them to elect him Grand Poohbah or whatever it is they call it and he can reign supreme for the rest of his life. Then he can show his true colors by shouting Death to America as often as he likes. /sarc
The Muslim Brotherhood, whose stated goal is the DESTRUCTION of civilization and global Islamic conquest, are U.S. leaders’ TOP FAVORITES.
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through…all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” – Marcus Tullius Cicero
Theocracies are by their nature and definition given to conflicts and none more so than muslim theocracies, all disagreements are characterized as not just a political dispute but blasphemy.
I have tried to enter the New Zealand Sweepstakes and cannot even find a place to let me enter. Please advise where I can do it. The www address listed doesn’t bring it up on my computer.
Obama’s Administration is the cleanest,EVER,but the dirtiest was…
“The presidency of Ronald Reagan, marked by multiple scandals, resulting in the investigation, indictment, or conviction of over 138 administration officials, the largest number for any US president”
next The Crook,Tricky Dick Nixon and GW Bush,can you say REPUBLICONS!