The American Plan

The Friends of Syria conference convened in Tunisia in response to the failure of the Security Council to pass a resolution. The resolution would adopt a plan for the stepping down of the Assad regime. The resolution failed because of the Russian veto, which China seconded. In this sense there is an alternative to the Security Council that is supporting the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The General Assembly has condemned the regime and adopted the Arab Initiative. Any political escalation and military pressure came during these split political decisions, of which all were agreed upon and implemented before the conference even began.

Arming the opposition is now a new demand. Demonstrators have called for supporting leaders of the “National Council”* for months, and some of the parties accepted these demands which included at least arms dealers with links to anti-regime third party political parties. The issue of weapons is no longer significant after their sufficient flow and penetration into Syria.

Perhaps the United States was behind the failure of making these decisions because it was not able to, and neither were its allies. Unification of the opposition and giving it an identity will ensure that what is happening in Syria is what happened in Libya after the fall of Gadhafi. The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has challenged, “I would challenge anyone to clearly identify for me the opposition movement in Syria at this point. There are indications that al-Qaida is involved and that they’re interested in supporting the opposition.” He also said, “We also need to be alert to the movement of extremists and other hostile actors seeking to exploit the situation.”

Just because America is puzzled doesn’t mean that Washington doesn’t know the components of the “National Council” and its facets. U.S. officials have made a splash, led by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, by hosting lengthy talks with the “National Council” and another individual who has some symbolic connection to the Muslim Brotherhood. Not to mention, the intelligence community knows the history of every person in the opposition. They didn’t even need Ayman al-Zawahiri’s speech to know that the organization exists in Syria. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper emphasized what came in Khalifa bin Laden’s letter to his brothers. Clapper said in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee: “The two bombings in Damascus in December… and then the two additional bombings in Aleppo, both of which were targeted against security and intelligence buildings… had all the earmarks of an al-Qaida-like attack…And so we believe al-Qaida in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria.” He continued, “The state of the opposition, which is quite fragmented, it’s very localized — the Syrian National Council really doesn’t…command and control these oppositionist groups.”

Al-Qaida in Syria will not prevent Washington from continuing to work on breaking down the Assad regime. It seeks to unite the opposition, bringing them to a mature level at which they could take power in an important country like Syria. In this framework (of a mature opposition) we are able to enforce the resolutions submitted to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Tunisia Conference. This framework will be present at future conferences to come.

This matter is not limited to this movement alone; in the face of the American administration is a plan or road map which a researcher from the Middle East Institute for Near East Policy, Jeffrey White, summed up (often the administration cites the studies that were done by this institute which was established by AIPAC). White advised that the administration adopt “indirect intervention,” which includes supporting “armed resistance, sabotage, political warfare, and civil resistance. The Syrian people are already employing such methods, but not in a coordinated, organized, or well-supported way… Through indirect intervention, the United States and others could provide weapons and training for resistance fighters, targeting advice and intelligence, and assistance in coordinating operations…” He calls for Washington to establish combat troops and provide them with weapons, training for building civil disobedience and resistance in order to widen the scope of demonstrations.

White returned in his report to the previous experiences of the United States in supporting and arming rebels. He also relates how their movements and development are followed so that they may not deviate from the planned political decree and that they may remain faithful to those who embraced them. If so, any indirect military support perhaps can be given by way of a third party that is loyal to the parties concerned, to eliminate the fear of extremists controlling the movement and the situation after the fall of the regime. In this case, Washington will be a major party in forming the new regime.

White’s traditional plan is known well by all observers of American politics. These guerrillas can be described as neophytes in this “science.” Its practical application began in Syria months ago. This is a very useful description for those who want to become acquainted with American trends with respect to Syria and the opposition, and in the evolution of events in the near future.

*Editor’s note: The Syrian National Council is the aspiring opposition government in exile.