Clinton Scared US Might Be Arming Al-Zawahiri

In a statement to CBS, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that she opposes arming the Syrian people who are revolting against their government. She said, “We know al-Qaida — Zawahiri is supporting the opposition in Syria. Are we supporting al-Qaida in Syria? Hamas is now supporting the opposition. Are we supporting Hamas in Syria?” Then she wondered out loud, “So if you’re a military planner or if you’re a secretary of state and you’re trying to figure out do you have the elements of an opposition that is actually viable, that we don’t see. We see immense human suffering that is heartbreaking and a stain on the honor of those security forces who [sic] are doing it.”*

With these comments, she reduced the Syrian revolution to another Somalia or Afghanistan!

Yes, Hilary Clinton can transform Syria into another Somalia if she wishes to view the biggest revolution in the history of the region that way. The Syrian revolution is the largest of the Arab Spring revolutions in terms of size, resilience, bloodshed and support from the Arab world. Clinton needs to remember that from day one, more than 11 months ago when demonstrations started in Daraa as a result of the imprisonment and torture of children and the subjugation of their parents, not one single shot has been fired by the civilians. Rather, all bullets fired were from the guns of the Syrian security forces. At first, there were no military defectors and no weapons were used. Nonetheless, the Assad government has asserted that the protestors belong to religious extremist groups, sometimes labeling them as Salafists or as terrorist infiltrators. The peaceful demonstrations continued for several months and spread all over Syria. The regime relied on propaganda and asserted that the demonstrators belonged to terrorist groups until the first photograph of military defector Hussein Harmoush appeared.

The Assad government is keen on promoting its alibi of “extremist groups” and blaming Salafists and al-Qaida. Additionally, individuals have appeared on TV claiming that they are terrorist infiltrators with foreign funding.

We know that the Syrian government has been al-Qaida’s main incubator for the past seven years, during which the group’s members were on Syrian territory near the border of Iraq. The U.S. has ample proof that most of the suicide bombers and other terrorists in Iraq had crossed over from the Syrian border. There is also a good deal of information on a major al-Qaida group that sought refuge in Iran after the war with Afghanistan. This group still operates from inside Iran, Syria’s principle ally. It is not a coincidence that al-Qaida leader Ayman Al-Zawahiri released a statement supporting the revolution against the Syrian government. Given the situation, we only have two possibilities on our hands. The first: This is all a strategic game on the part of the Syrian government, intended to scare the West away from the Syrian revolution by warning it of terrorist groups — and this is confirmed by Zawahiri’s statement. The second possibility is that al-Qaida really is trying to play a role in that which is, currently, the Arab and Muslim world’s most popular issue.

If Clinton sees al-Qaida’s statements, along with the entrance of a few members of al-Qaida and other extremist jihadist groups into the Syrian war, as justification to withdraw and close the door on the revolution, then she would be making a huge mistake. Syria, like North Korea, Iran and Cuba, is one of the few countries left in the world whose regimes continue to practice fierce security crackdowns. We have a popular revolution on our hands and we can’t accept any backtracking. If the U.S. wants to deem the aspirations of 25 million Syrians as part of al-Qaida’s activities, then the terrorists truly have hijacked the revolution. Al-Qaida will be known as the hero who resisted the Assad government.

It’s only a matter of time before Assad’s government is overthrown. There is no question about that. Then it will be up to regional powers or the world at large to decide how to deal with the legacy of Assad’s government. What also needs to be decided is whether they will allow the event to be stolen by groups who are looking for a cause, a place and an audience. An example of such a group would be al-Qaida, who has lost a great deal in the past few years.

Based on what is written and said about the Arab world, we can see waves of extremist jihadist groups emerging and crying out in support of the Syrian revolution. They do this, firstly, because it is a popular cause and, secondly, because of the international reluctance to act, even after a year of systematic genocide.

We understand that Clinton refuses to arm the rebels because she is unsure of their true identity, but what is the alternative? The alternative would be repeating what happened in Libya: an armed movement on the ground with international air support. It would be possible to distinguish between Syrian nationalist groups and the rejected jihadist groups (or infiltrators, as they are called in Damascus). However, to abandon Syria would mean allowing it to be burned to the ground by groups fighting the government. For a long time, the (political) parties of the Assad government have harbored terrorist groups affiliated with the Syrian and Iranian governments.