Won’t Syria Be Obama’s Main Middle East Crisis in 2013?
Sometime in 2013 there will be big choices for each side. For the current regime: will it retreat when necessary to a redoubt in the predominantly Alawite sector of the northeast? How quickly will the rebels assault that center, as compared to the work of consolidating their control over the rest of the country?
And finally, how many ethnic massacres will there be of Christians and Alawites in rebel-held territory, and of Sunni Muslims in regime-held territory? There is no doubt that such murders will take place by the Salafis even if the better-disciplined Muslim Brotherhood refrains from revenge killings. But will they reach the level that will shake up Western thinking and perhaps force a reluctant Obama administration to do something serious about them?
Why will the Obama administration be reluctant to act, and the Western media at least a little slow to recognize what’s happening? Because both are wedded to the rebels and the proposition that Islamists are ready to moderate. The way out is to blame the killings on the Salafis — probably true — and on al-Qaeda, the all-purpose scapegoat for everything bad that Islamists say and do. Remember the notion of “responsibility to protect”?
But once the rebels start consolidating rule, as happened in Egypt, there will be increasing examples to be ignored of radical Islamist control, repression, the defeat of the moderates, the persecution of Christians, and the reduction of women’s status.
It is a waste of time to discuss which side is better, or who one wants to win. The answer is simple: the best thing would be for moderates on the rebel side to win and to create some semblance of democracy and human rights. That possibility is still open, but things are looking grim. And here is where Western responsibility comes in. Helping the Islamists, and the Brotherhood in particular, makes Western governments complicit in their future crimes — not only against real regime supporters, but also against communities identified with the regime (Alawites and Christians), against moderates on the rebel side, and perhaps one day in attempts to crush the emerging Kurdish autonomy in the northeast.
So Assad won’t give in. The war will go on. And just as Egypt was the big continuing story of 2011-2012, the agony of Syria is likely to be the big story of 2013.
Bear with me while I quote the introduction of my book, The Truth About Syria, written six years ago:
Syria … provides the best case study of what has happened in the Arab world, and thus in the Middle East, during the last half-century. When it gained independence, Syria was a democratic country with a seemingly bright future. Blessed with fertile land and ample resources, Syria boasted good relations with the West as well as an energetic, entrepreneurial middle class. Yet a combination of radical intellectuals, militant ideologies, and ambitiously politicized military officers pushed Syria down a different path which has led to turmoil and disaster.
…
A professed republic, it has been long ruled by one family, passed down like a hereditary sinecure. A self-described progressive state, it is largely controlled by a small group that enriches itself at the expense of the great majority of its people. A supposed secular regime, it avidly courts radical Islamists abroad and has become increasingly Islamized at home.
No other country in the Middle East is as much of a cauldron of religious and ethnic groups — Muslims, Alawites, Druze, Christians, and Kurds — which compete for power. No place in the region has seen such a collision of contending ideologies — Arab nationalism, Syrian nationalism, Islamism, Communism, reformist liberalism, and more — which have battled it out for decades
…
Once the archetypal leftist, Arab nationalist regime, Syria is now the test case for the battle — whose outcome has the most serious implications for America — between Arab nationalist dictators, radical Islamist revolutionaries, and liberal reformers over the fate of the Arab and Muslim worlds. In our era, this contest is the most important struggle determining the direction of the entire world.
Why not partition Syria? After all it was good enough for Israel /palestine, India/Pakistan, N Sudan/S Sudan?
I think the Alawite/christians could form a rump state if the Russians will protect it. A plausible scenario could have the Russians going to UN and getting approval for such a protectorate ” to stop the bloodshed”. The Russians get their mediterranean port, the alawites get protection. The Sunnis get to rule the rest of Syria assuming the Druze and Kurds do get ideas of their own. No one will cross Putin. The Sunnis may be angry they don’t get everything they want but they know better than to antagonize the bear. Unlike Obama, Putin knows what his country’s interests are and will do what it takes to protect them.
This whole thing is none of our business.
All of the evils that have been taking place in the Middle East for the past couple of years were caused by Obama and Hillary intervening on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ, every chance they get.
Treason.
THIS is what Hillary Clinton is all about.
Dr. Rubin, when did you write in 2010 that Egypt would be the big story of 2011? Can you provide a link? Thanks.
I believe Professor Rubin has been warning about the Muslim Brotherhood since at least 2010. See RubinReports: “Muslim Brotherhood Declares War On America; Will America Notice?” (October 7, 2010). Back in 2010 — no Western analysts (to my knowledge), other than Barry Rubin, took note of Muhammad Badi’s “sermon”. Even after the mis-named Arab Spring, so-called experts at CNN were actively defending the Muslim Brotherhood. Peter Bergen (CNN) March 1, 2011 spoke about the “hysterical reaction” to the Muslim Brotherhood. They claimed the Brotherhood would never, ever, obtain power. And, they characterized the “Arab spring” as an American-style “civil rights” movement which was progressive and would bring peace, love, and brotherhood to all. That was repeated by *everyone* at CNN. (And, unfortunately, it’s still “the line”, the propaganda screed,touted by the clueless Team Obama.)
Given the list of things not getting done is lengthening, the list of things getting done is shortening.
How far are we from seeing nothing done?
Robert Spencer brings to our attention the fact that Hillary actually confessed that,“We now face a spreading jihadist threat,” she said, adding: “We have to recognize this is a global movement.” This from the Benghazi hearing on Wednesday.
O.K. so we need to know if Obama is correct in saying that Al Quaida does not exist; or if Hillary is correct in saying that (Al Quaida) jihad is a global movement; since those jihadists are Al Quaida “offshoots” or something.
SOMEONE is feeding us a line of crap and I think it’s the MB SOB’s that are advising the POTUS. The jihadi cell upon which we must focus our attention is operating right in front of our noses in the WH. That’s the only thing that makes sense in light of the fact that there are known MB operatives and Muslim members of the administration and national security entities.
THAT’s the real scoop …. … we have the MB plying their jihadi trade (as per their own admission and actions) in the government.
The Muslim Brotherhood hasn’t taken over Egypt; unless they outlawed the vote and I didn’t hear about it.
Deal with the fact that it’s an Islamic democracy and you just don’t like it. Just because you disagree with it doesn’t make it a theocracy any more than Israel is a theocracy – it’s just one you don’t like. You can’t redefine reality based on personal likes. It is what it is.
Here’s a bell-ringer: why act surprised an Islamic democracy has an Islamic slant? Did anyone really think that even a full-fledged Egyptian democracy would hang paintings of Jefferson and Washington in their parliament? Cuz that seems to be the approve/don’t approve benchmark.
This is a culture that doesn’t approve of homosexuality for example. That view is not forced on them, but one they agree with. They will vote accordingly, according to their values. When those values change, they’ll vote for gay rights, perhaps women’s rights. A democracy will have been in place all along.
American was a democracy when women couldn’t vote, Jews couldn’t walk into certain clubs, black were enslaved and then discriminated against, gays couldn’t declare themselves and Asians couldn’t immigrate.
Or was it? If these people are morons then help them. Sitting back and calling them morons won’t make friends or influence people. Or take the other tack and at least be honest and call for a ban on immigration from the Middle East.
Your last line is the only response. If these guys want to drape their women in bedsheets lest their uncontrollable man-lust compel them to rape, or if they want to set themselves ablaze in one large bonfire of religious martyrdom … more power to them. But why import these medieval nitwits en mass and write your own obituary? It’s mind-boggling what politicians are capable of doing.
Hey Burton. 90 percent of Egyptian woman’s cllits are hacked off. How’s that for womens rights?
And you have proof of your 90% statement………. Just wondering.
“The practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is still widespread in Egypt, with 91% prevalence in 2008 (Demographic Health Survey (DHS)).”
http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/fgm/rhr_hrp_10_17/en/
A man or group does not have to “outlaw the vote” to take over a country. You start out with a lame statement and then go downhill from there.
Yep. A downhill skid.. Some people just don’t get it. It’s part of the tragedy. Utterly oblivious…useless even trying to explain things (waste of time).
Burton fails in argumentation but has success in revealing Obama-ite ignorance. Certainly Islamists can create a democracy reflecting Islamist values (versus the values of the less strict moderate believers). And that is the point!!! If one makes oneself familiar with the theological VALUES of the Brotherhood and other Islamists, one will discover the DEMO-cracy is illigitimate, as “demos-” means that the people rule, viz, dictate how society will function. Islamists believe that Allah’s rules as revealed through his Prophet are imperatively to realize in the structure of society. The “people” may act DEMO-cratically within the rule dictates of ALLAH’s commands, viz., instructions, but must remain faithful to Allah’s dictates. Burton projects (as Obama now does and Bush W did) the same type of “people”, viz. “demos” values, typical of the West and of Israel, unto the “Allah-obeyors”, .e., the Islamists. The result is the type ignorance shown by Burton. In other words, TRUE-believing Islamic control will not moderate, viz, morph from Allah to the “demos-” without a serious surrendering faith in the words of the Prophet. If a person is of little understanding of faith, as I suspect Burton to be, said person will discard the “faith” of the Islamists or misinterpret it in the Western mode. No one thinks that the faith of Christians or of Jews in the USA will lead the believers to re-order society along strict Christian of Jewish faith propositions. But it belongs to the nature of Islamists to be persons of GREAT faith in the dictates of Allah revealed by the Prophet. If one accepts the thesis that Islamists are genuinely and honestly believers in the rules set down by Allah through his Prophet, then one should acknowledge that “DEMO-cracy” in the Western sense not only entails a misunderstanding of the Islamist’s faith, but constitutes a DEEP insult to the seriousness of his faith. “Demos” >>> Allah is a surrendering of Islamic faith. It is up to Burton to show that Islamists such as the Brotherhood are NOT truely believers in Allah, rather in the “Demos”. “Vox populi, vox dei” is foreign to Islam.
helen smith is ugly as hell. i’m glad that “young men are giving up on marriage”. it was a great article, and it shows that only the whiteknight beta males still sign the lopsided contract which sells themselves to women
The USA should get the hell out of the ME totally and fully harvest our own oil and gas reserves – on land and off shore – which, if combined with oil/gas from Canada and Latin America, would allow us to cease any importation any Arab oil/gas.
Let the Arabs kill each other. If they want to go back to the 9th century, let them. Just do not let any of them into the USA.
They are a bunch of savages.
As for Israel, the USA should provide them with all the weapons they need – including nuclear missiles if necessary – and tell them, “do what you must to ensure your safety” but you are on your own.
They can take care of themselves just fine.
For over 100 years the USA had somehow decided that we need to mind everybody else’s business and all that has given us is one damn war after another.
We need to arm ourselves to the teeth, destroy totally any group/nation that attacks us, and mind our own damn business.
Enough is enough.
Let the Arabs kill each other; good riddance.
Sounds like a plan.
BTW, Israel already has nuclear warheads.
One factor has not been mentioned, namely the role Russia will play. Putin has promised the Russian Orthodox Church (from whom he receives support in Russia) to protect the Christians in Syria and there are ca. 20,000 ex-pat Russians married with Syrians, I believe, with those of the regime. The slaughter of such people would cause difficulties at home for Putin. Then, there is the Russian desire for military presence in the area. Could it be that Russia inserts serious military means into the conflict, thereby frustrating the Islamists and the Obamaists?
Wow! I’ll print this out when i get home
And you push this as political analysis? Maybe in National Inquirer. In the article There is not a word about the role Iran plays in the Syrian theater. Assad’s patron is not China, it is not Russia, it is Iran. Russia and China support Assad to support Iran. And from China’s and Russia’s point of view Iran their conduit of influence in the middle east. And middle east is strategic because it has oil and gas which europe and China do not. Rubin keeps repeating the same mantra about the moderate/radical over and over again which has NO analytical content what so ever! So, who is going to fight Assad the tyrant to the end and kill him? University professors? Baker, Tailor or the candlestick maker? Of course the fighters on the other side will have some “motivated” radicals who would be on the front lines of a civil war. Who can replace them? Militarily, they are useful. Politically, they are even worse than Assad.
The stalemate continues between Assad and rebel forces because the outside forces who provide arms and resources to the fighting sides, regional forces and most importantly US (NATO) has not been in the game all the way. The US hopes that it can exploit Iran’s weaknesses in Syria and Iran to exact concessions out of it in nuclear talks. That is as long as the P5+1 Nuclear talks are going on, the US will not push for a speedy removal of Assad or Maliki. If the talks fail, then containment starts which means regime change in Syria and Iran.
it should : ..Iran’s weakness in Iraq and Syria..