Hi everyone!
The more I think about the situation in Syria, the angrier it makes me feel. I realize there is no perfect solution for halting the violence and that the overthrow of the Assad regime does not guarantee a peaceful or orderly transition to democracy. The main problem the Syrian opposition has--as I've said before--is that there isn't a central leadership. The Free Syrian Army, mainly comprised of Syrian army deserters, is a loosely confederated network of freestanding militias. Whatever binds them together is under threat of dissolution. According to a recent report on CNN International's website, three rival rebel leaders are claiming that they are the driving force behind the rebellion, none of whom seem interested in sharing credit.
Major Mahar Naimi, spokesman for the newly created Higher Military Council, told CNN over the weekend that his organization, under the command of General Mustafa Sheikh, is the leading force driving change in Syria. In a case of tit-for-tat, Colonel Riad al-Assad long known to be one of the "commanders" of the Free Syrian Army, dismissed Major Naimi's charge by saying: "This man represents himself. He has nothing to do with the Free Syrian Army...those people are representing themselves and do not represent the revolution and the Free Syrian Army."
Into the mix we need to add Lieutenant Bassim Khaled, another defector from the Syrian army, who claims that neither the Free Syrian Army nor the Higher Military Council are the ones in command of opposition forces--at least not in Homs, the city currently being pummeled into the ground by Assad's pro-government troops--but rather a militia calling itself the Al Farroukh Battalion.
Who to to believe? Or are all claimants telling the truth? It doesn't really matter. The point here is that it is all well and good for each of these organizations to be fighting the good fight against Assad's forces. These are brave and patriotic men leading the charge in defense of a better and ostensibly freer Syria. I commend them and the men and women who fight under their leadership wherever they may be. The problem though is that despite these pockets of resistance, Assad still commands an army of at least 200,000 and, unless Russian and Chinese leaders are lobotomized, overthrown, or come to recognize their grievous error in vetoing the Security Council resolution, Assad will continue to benefit from Russian arms sales that will provide his army with vastly superior weaponry with which to quell the rebellion.
But further to that, the question remains: Without a united non-sectarian opposition front headed by qualified politicians and experienced diplomats, if and when Assad falls, what happens then? In the wake of the failure of the resolution, the West and its allies in the Arab World should work together to not only arm the rebels but actively work towards building an opposition leadership that can credibly work to building a free and democratic Syria when the fighting comes to an end. Otherwise, I fear more chaos and Sunni vs. Alawite sectarian warfare.
Ciao.
Showing posts with label Free Syrian Army. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Syrian Army. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The Syrian Civil War
Happy Super Bowl Sunday, everyone!
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
Ciao.
As predicted, Russia and China vetoed the Security Council resolution requiring Assad to essentially turn the Syrian government over to a vice president pending elections. As if on cue, Syrian government troops intensified their crackdown on the town of Homs, which has become the eye of the Syrian protest movement. The vote would have resoundingly passed had it not been for Russia and China who said any such resolution would have been a violation of Syrian sovereignty. This veto has initiated a diplomatic firestorm with angry accusations being hurled between U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian foreign minister Sergey V. Lavrov, among others. According to Mr. Lavrov, Russian objection to the resolution stemmed from the fact that Russia feels there was an inadequate balance of blame for the violence being placed on the Syrian government and that the opposition was just as responsible, if not more so, for the rising body count.
Of course, this isn't the real reason for Russia's objections. The real reason, as I've written here before, is that Russia makes a lot of money selling arms and other types of military equipment to Syria. If Russia were to be seen criticizing its number one client, that business and lucrative source of income would surely evaporate. Russia can't afford to lose that.
It seems there's very little to be done unless the U.S. or other countries within Europe or the Arab League take matters into their own hands. This, however, isn't likely. After Iraq, the U.S. is loath to take the lead in setting foot in another Arab country without such action being unilaterally approved. I could be wrong, but I do not believe the Arab World has its own multinational force--like, for example, the African Union Force that currently has troops on the ground in Somalia--that could intervene through military action. It's a shame because I do believe any sort of intervention has to be Arab-led. But the state of affairs between most of these Arab countries is so fraught with uncertainty and sectarian animosity that I don't imagine it would even be possible.
In Egypt and other countries throughout the Middle East as well as Germany and Greece, Syrian embassies were burned overnight in direct protest of the intensifying action against the opposition in Homs. Because foreign journalists are not allowed inside Syria, it is difficult to get a true sense of the violence taking place there. However, video has been smuggled out and posted on YouTube that vividly brings the situation to life. According to one eyewitness account related in today's New York Times:
"It's a real massacre in every sense of the word. I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads, beheaded. It's horrible and inhuman. It was a long night helping people get to hospitals."Unfortunately, I think the situation is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better especially as the Free Syrian Army advances closer to Damascus, Syria's capitol that has until now been spared most of the carnage. While diplomats and military experts are hesitant to label it thus, what we are seeing in Syria today is a civil war. Unless Russia is made to stand down from its position, there's really nothing the Security Council or anyone can legally do. And the Free Syrian Army is too scattered and ill-armed to seriously be considered capable of overthrowing the government. What are we left with? More of the same.
Ciao.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)