The Strange Alliances and Alignments That Have Characterized the Syrian Conflict
By Tyrus W. Cobb
Colleagues:
The President will make a major plea tomorrow for support for his call for retaliation against Syria for its employment of chemical weapons against its own population. He faces a difficult task, as whatever support existed for the strikes has largely dissipated, here and abroad.
Obama failed to secure an endorsement of his planned retaliatory strikes at the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, and it was not just Russian President Vladimir Putin’s opposition that led to the failure to secure even a modest resolution endorsing military action. NATO allies fell off the bandwagon, particularly following PM Cameron’s defeat for such a resolution in the British Parliament. The Arab League remains opposed to a Western military strike, even as much as they condemn Assad verbally. The Asian countries followed China’s lead, nodded about the horror of employing chemical weapons, and then turned the Summit back to its original purpose—resuscitating the global economy.
Opposition Grows in the US Leading to Strange Alignments
In the United States public opposition to military strikes has only grown, with less than 26% solidly supporting retaliation in the form of offensive attacks. The Pentagon itself is clearly unenthusiastic about any military action—one only has to look at the body language shown by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and JCS Chairman, GEN Marty Dempsey, during the Congressional hearings. Talk about lukewarm support and doubt!
And here begins the irony. In the face of tepid enthusiasm shown by the professional military and Hagel, the charge for authorization for the strikes has fallen to…..Secretary of State John Kerry! You remember, the longtime antiwar activist who voted against a number of authorizations for force (think Iraq!) when he was a Senator. And by a White House under the leadership of a former community organizer, and also an opponent of military intervention when he was a Senator, Barack Obama!
Obama still may get a Congressional “mandate”, or at least some form of authorization, but if so it will be very limited. What I find more interesting and ironic, however, are the coalitions that have formed both in support of and opposing any resolution.
In favor we find liberals such as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid leading the charge to demand resolute military retaliation, joined by traditional hard liners like John McCain and Lindsey Graham! In opposition, however, is an equally strange alliance, formed by a group of liberal Democratic Congressmen in the House, joined by Tea Party conservatives like Rep Ted Cruz, and on the Senate side, far right Senators like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. Now if that ain’t a weird pair of coalitions!
One could add in the number of usually anti-interventionist Democrats, primarily in the House, who will reluctantly support their President, although they strongly disagree with the policy they will vote to endorse. And, on the other side, Senators who have traditionally called for a pro-active U.S. role internationally, and who criticize Obama for “leading from behind”, will, despite that belief, cast a negative vote here in order to further reduce the stature of the President.
Growing Doubts on Responsibility and Retaliation
Nor is there complete agreement out there even on the question of whether or not it was the Assad regime that employed chemical weapons. For my part, I am absolutely convinced by the presentation of evidence provided by Secretary Kerry and the administration. Chemical weapons were deployed against civilian targets and that was a conscious directive from the Assad regime.
Still there are doubters, and they also run the gamut of the political spectrum! There has been no little speculation that the chemical weapons were deployed by elements of the rebel alliance. No responsible source has forwarded this assertion, but it has gone viral on the right wing blogosphere. And, at the same time, it has been a core theme of the far left media sites.
Few have noticed, but within Syria there is also a discernible split. Of course, the rebel alliance is demanding not only strikes against the Assad regime, but additional weaponry to even the playing field. And they are right that they are at a severe disadvantage in this stand-off—the regime, well armed by Iran and Russia, has a distinct advantage over the less well supplied rebels.
So who besides the regime opposes more aid to the rebellion? Well, for starters, the Christian community and other minorities who have been tolerated and conduct their services unimpeded under the Alawites, but fear—rightly—that if the Sunni-dominated rebels were to seize power, their fate would mirror that of the Coptic Christians in Egypt (who were under assault during the brief reign of the Sunni-dominated Muslim Brotherhood).
Ok, here’s a wild speculation—Who else inside Syria would welcome a Western military response? Well, maybe, as I have speculated, the Assad regime itself!
Preposterous, you say? Maybe so, but why else would the Assad regime launch a chemical weapons attack that would have zero military impact, and would likely invite an American, if not NATO, attack? Well, knowing that such retaliation would be very limited, all an attack might do is drive Iran and Russia more firmly into supporting their erstwhile ally, Syria. Perhaps Assad is concerned over a possible US-Iranian rapprochement with the election of President Rouhani and some sort of understanding between Moscow and Washington. An attack from the West would put those shifts to rest. Yes, I know, speculation, but….
Finally, the coalition supporting the rebel alliance is an awkward one. The donors are largely oil rich Sunni monarchies in the Gulf region, hardly interested in establishing a secular, democratically oriented regime in Syria. They are aligned with the U.S. and other Western powers, whose primary interests lie in formulating a coalition government that protects the right of minorities—especially women—and would bring various factions together. Unfortunately, that is not at the top of the list for the Saudis and other Gulf kingdoms! Not sure we have thought through the implications of providing extensive support to the rebels.
And on the other side? Well, here you have Russia, backing Syria and its primary ally, Iran. However, Tehran is the leading promoter of Islamic causes in the Caspian region, while Moscow is deeply concerned over Muslim unrest in the fastest growing demographic in that country, those who hold strong Islamist beliefs! And, of course, Moscow sees Assad as its last hope for maintaining influence in the region, even though its sole remaining bastion is nothing more than a pier in Tartus manned by maybe 8 workers!
Thus a President whose instincts clearly lie in the non-interventionist side of the political spectrum, assisted by a leading anti-war advocate as his Secretary of State, will lead the charge for punishing military strikes against Assad for a crime the world recognizes as cruel and immoral, but one that does not directly threaten our national security interests. Obama will likely argue that this policy recommendation follows logically on his previous initiatives, such as the very aggressive drone attacks on various terrorist groups (targeted assassinations??). Opponents from the far right will argue that America needs to “come home”, disengage from “foreign entanglements”, and direct our financial wealth toward solving our own problems. Mainly by reducing and limiting an overly-active government!
Oh, well, hope you find the strange alignments that have arisen to address the Syrian morass as confusing as I do!
- Tyrus W. Cobb
Reno, September 9, 2013