A Syrian-American considers the Syrian insurgency and the American imperative #Syria

Thomas E Ricks  06/03/12

By “A Syrian-American”

Best Defense guest column

The Bashar al-Assad regime now faces itself with the dilemma of quelling a quickly proliferating armed insurgency that has fused with a popular uprising. Cities like Homs, Zabadani, Rastan, and Idlib have become modern day ghettos, sealed off by special task forces of elite units and paramilitary squads specifically recruited to cleanse neighborhoods and towns of those who dare to resist the Baathist diktat.

By many definitions, Syria has become ensnared in a full-fledged civil war. But beyond the narrative of internal strife, when one takes a careful look at a map of where the uprisings are taking place and the towns that have effectively ceased to recognize the government, a competing narrative emerges not of internecine conflict but one of national unity — a whole country that has been brought together in opposition to the Assad family’s self-declared right to rule.

The people in this archipelago of resistance cling to a hope — perhaps foolishly — that their cause will win the day. Like any illegitimate occupational force, the Assad loyalist army can only control the ground occupied by its Soviet-era tanks. Take out the saturation of paramilitary, heavy artillery, and special forces units in the cities, and the popular rebellion will reach critical mass.

For Syrians attempting to survive, there is no illusion of life under the Assad tyranny. The executions of captured defectors, and the past executions of leading non-violent activist heroes like Ghaith Mattar speak to the reality that there can be no reconciliation with the mass murderers of the Baath Party.

The delusions of dialogue and a negotiated settlement with the Assad apparatus have long faded. One cannot negotiate, let alone reason, with a government that makes mass killings its domestic policy. In every way, the ideology and the solution being employed by Bashar al-Assad and his confidants are neo-fascist in function and form.

Reaching the tipping point to this conflict will require a determined shove by the international community. There are broader regional interests in play, and a rebel victory can prove to be a damning blow to Iranian hegemonic aspirations that have claimed the lives of freedom-seeking Syrians in addition to the Americans who have fallen victim to Iranian-supplied weaponrythroughout the region. The rebels now claim that they are fighting the same Hizballah and Iranian revolutionary guard forces in Syria that have wrought so much havoc across the world for the West.

Hundreds of civilians have needlessly died since U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay’s presciently warned the U.N. General Assembly that the ongoing assault and shelling by Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the city of Homs presented a “harbinger of worse to come.” Among the dead are journalists who perished attempting to show the world just how real, and how tragically correct, Pillay had been — and just how wrong the assembly of global leadership have proved in their stupor.

To further punctuate the consequences of paralysis, Pillay rightly cautioned the General Assembly that the failure of the U.N. to enact “collective action” was actually “emboldening” the Assad regime to escalate the violence against his own people. Since the U.N. human rights report presented by Pillay was published, the regime, sadly, has launched a second concerted campaign to retake rebel-held territory in the north while simultaneously pouring hundreds of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles into the strategic mountain town of Zabadani on the Lebanese border.

By the time you read these words, more cities will have come under siege. Hoping that the world will see them, the residents of the town of Ar Rastan, an essentially liberated town, have written in large rock formations the words “S.O.S,” hoping that they would be seen from the sky. Their eyes turn upwards not just in the hope of salvation from the nightmare that many are now living, but in the desire for a lifeline that provides support beyond tired platitudes.

The U.S. State Department even published satellite imagery of the formations of artillery batteries and tanks that are pummeling cities en masse. Perhaps it was done to shame the regime and its allies. The real shame is now borne by those who watched those armor columns and the screaming 120 mm shells slam into the homes of the innocent — and did nothing.

The imperative for bold American action has never been stronger. While the Qataris and theSaudis have openly called for the funding and material aid of the rebels, the Turks have made it clear that they are not willing to go all in without some degree of U.S. backing. As uncomfortable as it may be, an end-game in Syria will require a level of U.S. involvement, whether be it direct or through an indirect approach.

Moral clarity can be best guided by this realization: this regime has concluded that in order to control the ghettos that have risen against it, they must be razed. The late Hafez al-Assad did this to one city in the past, Hama, that rebelled against his authority in 1982. Today, the younger Assad faces many more situations, and is displaying an equal determination to destroy them all.

And so the world now has a front-row seat to the play-by-play gradual demolition of homes, neighborhoods, and of whole families — their liberation cut short by a vengeful, cruel, and cynical regime. The aftermath, as it were, is already visible for all to see in horrid detail. Yet western leaders continue to balk at taking a bold position, fearing that supporting the rebels in any form could somehow enable religious extremists and Al Qaeda.

Secretary Clinton was wrong when she suggested that supporting rebel forces could benefit al Qaeda. Yes, it is true that al Qaeda’s leader Ayman Zawhiri declared his solidarity with the rebels and called on jihadis to support their cause. But in his distant Waziristan cave, the disconnected Zawhiri is a feckless general commanding phantom legions. There is no room for an Islamic Emirate in Syria. Liberation is not a slippery slope to rule by the clerics. The fighters are not looking to replace a mustached dictator with a bearded one. The Muslim Brotherhood is widely viewed in suspicion by the revolutionary councils and rebel fighters alike. It makes little sense to cede the ground to the jihadis in Syria when their program carries little credibility among the rebels and the majority Sunni Arab populace. It will be municipal elections and the desire to reawaken a civic involvement that is truly invested in their country’s future that will occupy the daily concerns of Free Syrians — not the resurrection of the caliphate.

The end of the Assad regime will not immediately usher in a grand new era of democracy and functioning governance, but the sooner the first steps are taken towards this transition, the more any negative fallout can be mitigated and safely contained. This will be good for Syria, the region, and more broadly Western interests.

To achieve their vision for victory, from Homs to Deraa, the revolutionary councils that guide the day-to-day insurrectionist activity and the rebel networks they support are looking to the U.S., EU, and the Gulf countries for aid. There is growing disillusionment of the timid international response and of the apparent lack of willingness by the West to support the revolution. According to rebel reports, even those Syrians who volunteered to fight U.S. forces in Iraq have expressed their support for receiving American aid to fight the regime.

Some Western commentators have opined that opposition groups on the ground are disorganized and incapable of overthrowing the regime. They are wrong. The capability to take on Assad forces exists and the possibility of a rebel victory is real, but this outcome becomes more realistic in the near future if enabled and supported with material aid.

The rebels have proven their bona fides; regime security forces even with overwhelming firepower took weeks before they could enter the Baba Amr neighborhood in Homs — and that’s just one neighborhood. As any rebel force does, the one in Syria fights and retreats and fights again as it gathers additional strength from its popular support. But there are no Benghazis here. Alone they can at best put forth a heroic stand that will lead to a prolonged stalemate. With aid, they can end the violence, and the Assad-sponsored killing fields, by ending the regime.

An Open Letter to the Arab League on its Catastrophic Failure in #Syria by @LeShaque

by Shakeeb Al-Jabri
I am a Syrian citizen who was born and raised in Beirut, Lebanon. I am thirty years old now and trying to figure out my future. By December 2010 I had given up on the Arab World and was preparing to apply for immigration to Canada. I watched with envy as Tunisia and Egypt revolted and succeeded in their quest for freedom.

When the Arab Spring finally reached Syria I was ecstatic. I had never thought that I will ever be able to dream of a Syria free of oppression and tyranny. Throughout the past ten months I watched as the Syrian people braved death daily to protest for their cause as Assad’s forces committed daily massacres to suppress these protests and maintain their grip on power.

I also watched as the Arab League failed to contain Assad’s death machine while making a mockery of the League. At first, for four months, you tried pretending the Syrian people didn’t exist. Then on July 13 your Secretary-General announced from Damascus, “Syria has entered a new era and is now moving on the road of a genuine reform.” At the same time security forces were killing people just kilometers away in Damascus’ suburbs.

On November 2 your efforts resulted in an agreement with the Assad regime to end the violence within 15 days. It is now almost two months since the agreement was signed and the regime continues to perpetrate atrocities while the Arab League’s best efforts have failed to stop it.

The Syrian people would like you be honest with them.

We’re tired of your pathetic efforts to stop the regime’s violence. We’re sick of your empty statements that do nothing to stop the bloodshed. We’re shocked at your lack of respect for Syrian lives. The false hope you gave us killed us.

You sent monitors to verify that Assad has complied with the Arab League plan. They arrived in Syria more than a month after the deadline you gave Assad had passed. Now that they have been on the job for almost a month we’re hearing comments from your end that they need financing and training. Did neither of these occur to you in the weeks you spent negotiating with the regime?

On the first day of the mission the monitors visited Baba Amro, a neighborhood of Homs that had witnessed a brutal campaign by the regime that saw entire buildings bombed to rubble. The monitors refused to tour the side streets in fear for their own safety. The next day, the chief monitor, Mohammad Al-Dabi told Reuters that he saw “nothing frightening” in Homs. If there was nothing frightening, why did he tell the residents he can’t risk visiting their neighborhoods?

A delegation of monitors visiting Latakia was shot at and eleven of its members were injured. You told the press that “unknown protesters” opened fire on them. What use are monitors if they can’t tell who’s shooting at them?

You sent a suspected war criminal to monitor the war crimes of another war criminal. Al-Dabi was caught lying several times. He said armored vehicles had been withdrawn. Activists published videos showing monitors standing next to tank. He said that the monitor who resigned, Anwar Malek, had never gone on tour. Activists again published videos showing Mr. Malek on tour. How can trust be established when lies are the basis of the monitors’ mission?

Throughout the mission the Assad regime has been using its media to utterly humiliate the Arab League and its monitors. They have launched a campaign labelling the Arab League as the Hebrew League. The campaign also involved personal attacks on the League’s Secretary-General and its current president. State media lobs insults at the Arab League and its constituents in every newscast. They’ve gone as far as producing propaganda spots and dedicating entire talk shows to humiliating you. Have you no dignity?

Now we are hearing that the monitors’ mission may be extended for another month. Al-Dabi told the media that the “mission will continue in its current mandate.” We haven’t missed that the Syrian Foreign Ministry had made the same exact comment. Just exactly how many months does it take to verify if the regime is complying with the November 2 plan?

The decisions so far have been based on the premise that Assad will eventually comply with your plan to stop the violence. This premise is severely flawed. The regime-perpetrated violence has only increased since the Arab League involved itself in Syria’s crisis. In his speech, Assad clearly stated that the military campaign will go on.

All Syrians will be watching what happens at your meeting this coming Sunday. Your failure so far, coupled with your ill-advised statements, have left Syrian activists wondering if you are just buying time for Assad to complete his military campaign.

We’ll be watching your meeting on Sunday closely. We’re hoping to see you take tough decisions that will help put an end to Assad’s savage campaign. We cannot put up with more weak decisions, extensions, and delays while our children are being brutally murdered and our women are being gang-raped. Your very integrity as an institution relies on being clear with the Syrian people. We expect you to help an Arab country of 23 million people.

Your working plan for Syria has failed with catastrophic consequences. The violence continues. Tens of thousands are still detained. Your efforts have yielded nothing of substantial significance. The Syrian people need you to stop pretending you are doing something and rather actually do something to help. And if you can’t, there’s no shame in admitting your limitations.

Article and shoddy research by J Steele debunked by @Brian_Whit, @BSS_Syria. Good job guys. #Syria

Brian Whitaker’s Article: Syria and the ‘Assad poll’

Another insidious myth is doing the rounds: that 55% of Syrians support president Assad. The figure was cited by Aisling Byrne in an article which I critiqued recently. Now, it has surfaced again in an article by Jonathan Steele for the Guardian.

While it is undoubtedly true that the Assad regime still has a measure of support within Syria, no one can sensibly put a figure on it or claim that Assad’s supporters form a majority.

The 55% figure comes from an internet survey by YouGov Siraj for al-Jazeera’s Doha Debates. Just over 1,000 people across the Arab countries were asked their opinion of Assad and an overwhelming majority – 81% – thought he should step down.

However, al-Jazeera says the picture inside Syria is different: “Syrians are more supportive of their president with 55% not wanting him to resign.”

What is the basis for this statement? A look at the methodology of the survey shows that 211 of the respondents were in Levantine countries and that 46% of those were in Syria. In other words, the finding is based on a sample of just 97 internet users in Syria among a population of more than 20 million. It’s not a meaningful result and certainly not adequate grounds for such sweeping conclusions about national opinion in Syria.

Source: http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2012/blog1201.htm#syria_and_the_assad_poll

British Solidary for Syria’s Article: Syrian poll backing Assad has no credibility

It is astonishing that you publish an article based on such poor evidence (Most Syrians back Assad, 18 January). We have no doubt that the Doha Debates are a respectable forum for dialogue, but in the poll Jonathan Steele quotes, 1,012 respondents completed the survey, with only 21% (211 respondents) from the Levant. Only 46% of those 211 were from Syria – that’s about 97 respondents. How can this possibly be representative of Syrian opinion? And is it even possible to conduct an objective opinion poll in a tyranny ruled by fear, where expressing opinions freely can lead to arrest, torture, and even execution? Steele talks about western media bias, but does not mention that very few journalists have been able to enter Syria legally. Those that do are kept under tight surveillance. Neither does he mention the role of Syrian state media in spreading disinformation and fuelling armed conflict. He seems to have set himself an impossible task – proving the legitimacy of a dictatorship which kills its citizens on a daily basis.


Anas El-Khani, Kinana Saffour, Anass Toma, Amr Salahi, Hamza al-Sibaai, Hussam Hajjouk
British Solidarity for Syria

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/syrian-poll-assad-no-credibility