Do 200 Americans Scare al-Assad?
Published in Asharq Al Awsat
(Saudi Arabia) on 21 April 2013
by Abdul Rahman al-Rashed (link to original)
In the mid-‘90s, the U.S. government was adamant to spread the news that it had allocated about $15 million in order to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. It announced that it was spending it on the training and arming of Iraqi opposition groups in the Kurdish region.
Although the news greatly resonated through the media, when the Americans met Arab allies their reaction was counterproductive. They said, we do not intend to topple Saddam’s huge system, so what can you do with $15 million? But when George W. Bush, the former president of the United States, decided to overthrow Saddam, he sent 100,000 troops and the message was clear to all.
Despite any humanitarian message from the United States, it is sending only 200 troops to Jordan to face the repercussions of the war in Syria. The United States does not intend to intervene; with a figure so small it can only reinforce the belief that it intends to carry out limited operations, such as controlling chemical or biological weapons sites.
Numbers tell the story of past wars. The previous U.S. governments sent 178,000 troops to Iraq at the height of the war and more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. U.S. President Barack Obama has yet to intervene in Syria; it seems he will not do this, since it requires a great political act to persuade Congress to agree. That feat will not be easy in the current circumstances, unless the war in Syria evolves on one of two fronts: terrorism or a clash with Israel.
Two years ago, if international intervention had been backed and the armed opposition been supported at the beginning of the war, perhaps the magnitude of the human tragedy could have been minimized. Perhaps this would have enabled the opposition to form civil governance and prevent feuds and massacres, as well as the civil war itself.
The ground in Syria has become scorched. The horrific situation today is a result of the country being out of control: It is no longer systematically governed and the opposition cannot manage. Over time, the whole of Syria will become like the rest of the lawless areas. This increases the rate of human suffering and promotes the “law of the jungle.”
This is a result of international non-interference and the condoning of the war between the heavily armed regime forces and the disorganized armed opposition.
Government troops have lost in most areas, but they have succeeded in destroying all the sites that were forced to exit — even many of which are no longer fit for habitation. Because of them, more than 3 million Syrians migrated from their towns and villages. So what can U.S. or international intervention do now? Americans may be able to help the rebels seize Damascus and Aleppo and expel the system, but they will not be able to stop the conflict between the revolutionary forces or protect what has been fought for on the ground.
Also, the international community can help the rebels manage the rest of the battle to overthrow the regime and organize themselves to manage their own affairs —a task at which they seem to have failed. Despite being brave fighters, they are statistically defeated by their lack of weapons and having to confront one of the most powerful armies of the region.
Leaving Syria to the chaos has been a major strategic error by the U.S. and the West, with Arabs in the foreground. A hundred American troops will not intimidate President Assad, lift the spirits of the rebels or ensure the safety of Jordan, which has become threatened.
Although the news greatly resonated through the media, when the Americans met Arab allies their reaction was counterproductive. They said, we do not intend to topple Saddam’s huge system, so what can you do with $15 million? But when George W. Bush, the former president of the United States, decided to overthrow Saddam, he sent 100,000 troops and the message was clear to all.
Despite any humanitarian message from the United States, it is sending only 200 troops to Jordan to face the repercussions of the war in Syria. The United States does not intend to intervene; with a figure so small it can only reinforce the belief that it intends to carry out limited operations, such as controlling chemical or biological weapons sites.
Numbers tell the story of past wars. The previous U.S. governments sent 178,000 troops to Iraq at the height of the war and more than 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. U.S. President Barack Obama has yet to intervene in Syria; it seems he will not do this, since it requires a great political act to persuade Congress to agree. That feat will not be easy in the current circumstances, unless the war in Syria evolves on one of two fronts: terrorism or a clash with Israel.
Two years ago, if international intervention had been backed and the armed opposition been supported at the beginning of the war, perhaps the magnitude of the human tragedy could have been minimized. Perhaps this would have enabled the opposition to form civil governance and prevent feuds and massacres, as well as the civil war itself.
The ground in Syria has become scorched. The horrific situation today is a result of the country being out of control: It is no longer systematically governed and the opposition cannot manage. Over time, the whole of Syria will become like the rest of the lawless areas. This increases the rate of human suffering and promotes the “law of the jungle.”
This is a result of international non-interference and the condoning of the war between the heavily armed regime forces and the disorganized armed opposition.
Government troops have lost in most areas, but they have succeeded in destroying all the sites that were forced to exit — even many of which are no longer fit for habitation. Because of them, more than 3 million Syrians migrated from their towns and villages. So what can U.S. or international intervention do now? Americans may be able to help the rebels seize Damascus and Aleppo and expel the system, but they will not be able to stop the conflict between the revolutionary forces or protect what has been fought for on the ground.
Also, the international community can help the rebels manage the rest of the battle to overthrow the regime and organize themselves to manage their own affairs —a task at which they seem to have failed. Despite being brave fighters, they are statistically defeated by their lack of weapons and having to confront one of the most powerful armies of the region.
Leaving Syria to the chaos has been a major strategic error by the U.S. and the West, with Arabs in the foreground. A hundred American troops will not intimidate President Assad, lift the spirits of the rebels or ensure the safety of Jordan, which has become threatened.