" />

Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Beating the Wrong Drum in Syria

Print Friendly

The recent deaths of two Western journalists in Syria, killed during the Assad regime’s shelling of the Amr Baba neighborhood in Homs, has cast a new light on a near-daily slog of reports chronicling the carnage in Syria, where the regime has launched increasingly brutal attacks on civilian population centers in response to an increasingly armed and violent opposition.

 

Citing the final dispatch of Marie Colvin, one of the slain reporters, the Washington Post quickly editorialized: “Ms. Colvin was trying to tell the world is that [Srebrenica] is happening again, in Baba Amr. … If the Western nations and Syria’s neighbors continue to stand by passively, Ms. Colvin’s words will come back to haunt them.” A few days before, the Post had explicitly called for the West to arm Syria’s opposition elements: “The most available and workable solution,” it claimed, “is tactical and materiel support for the anti-regime forces, delivered through neighbors such as Turkey or the Persian Gulf states.”

 

That the Post, with its cast of neoconservative writers and editors, would call for U.S. involvement in a conflict in the Middle East should come as no surprise. Neither should calls by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for the United States to channel arms to Syrian opposition fighters through connections in “third-world countries,” or Sen. Joe Lieberman’s (I-CT) support for instituting Libya-style “no-fly” zones over parts of Syria. But the Obama administration, which has ostensibly sought a diplomatic resolution to the crisis, also appears to be softening its once-strong opposition to arming Syria’s rebels.

 

Last week, a coalition of 56 hawks assembled by the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Foreign Policy Initiative sent President Obama an open letter demanding action on Syria. The letter—whose signatories included the likes of Paul Bremer, Elizabeth Cheney, and Dan Senor—called on the president “to take immediate steps to decisively halt the Assad regime's atrocities against Syrian civilians, and to hasten the emergence of a post-Assad government in Syria,” including by providing “self-defense aid to the FSA [Free Syrian Army].”

 

Calls for further escalation will doubtless follow. And although they are keen to raise recent events, many of the letter’s signatories have been calling for regime change in Syria for months or even years.

 

Max Boot, another signatory to the letter, has claimed that “foreign jihadists will flock to Syria” if Assad is not deposed—a rather astonishing assertion given the documented (if not overwhelming) presence of Islamists in Syria’s domestic opposition, as well as Iraq’s all too recent descent into violent extremism in the wake the U.S. invasion.

 

However, Syria hawks have yet to articulate how funneling arms to a fractured Syrian opposition could help end the bloodletting in the country. Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch, himself a stringent backer of the NATO action in Libya, has strongly opposed a similar course in Syria. “Arming the Syrian opposition is not a cheap and effective substitute for military intervention,” he wrote, “and it is not a generally harmless way to ‘do something.’ It does not guarantee either the protection of the Syrian people or the end of the Assad regime. It is more likely to produce a protracted stalemate, increased violence, more regional and international meddling, and eventual calls for direct military intervention.”

 

Since Gaddafi was deposed in Libya, for instance, scores of dueling militias—often with western-provided arms—have continued to skirmish with each other and terrorize civilian populations. Similarly, funneling arms wantonly into Syria might help bring down Assad, but there’s no reason to expect it will end the killing. It may well do just the opposite.

 

—Peter Certo

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

The now-defunct internet magazine Tech Central Station served as a platform for advocates of militarist U.S. foreign policies.


Once described as the “heart and soul of the military-industrial complex,” the American Security Council was an influential old-guard conservative group during the early Cold War that continues to press a conservative U.S. foreign policy vision.


An academic center of the American conservative movement, the Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs has been a vigorous defender of the war on terrorism and an unequivocal supporter for Israel.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York City a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, has been a vocal advocate for staunchly militaristic foreign policies.


Michael Flynn–a retired U.S. Army lieutenant general who fears Muslims, wants war with Iran, is regarded as “unhinged” by military colleagues, and likes to cozy up to Vladimir Putin–was selected to be National Security Advisor in the Trump White House.


Rick Perry, Donald Trump’s choice for energy secretary, is a former Texas governor and two-time failed Republican presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Not only is Monica Crowley, Donald Trump’s pick to head communications for the National Security Council, the subject of a wide-ranging plagiarism scandal, she pushed fringe conspiracy theories about “Islamist infiltration in the U.S.”


Print Friendly

From a territorial perspective the Security Council resolution 2334, stating that Israel′s settlement activity constitutes a “flagrant violation” of international law, represents an escalation in the way the international community relates to Israel’s borders and its settlements in the West Bank.


Print Friendly

On Oct. 27, 2016, the UN adopted a resolution to launch negotiations in 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapon. Two weeks later the US elected Donald Trump, who subsequently argued that the US must “greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”


Print Friendly

As Trump supporters gear up for a fight to weaken or destroy the Iran nuclear deal, a new poll has found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. public opposes withdrawing from the agreement.


Print Friendly

For all of its faults, the Obama administration was acutely aware of the limits to the use of American military force, whether it was struggling with terrorist organizations or contemplating the impact the use of force would have on achieving U.S. national security objectives.


Print Friendly

A senior Israeli government minister has announced that he will introduce legislation to effectively annex Israel’s third-largest settlement, part of a plan to incrementally annex parts of the West Bank .


Print Friendly

A group of 37 American scientists–including Nobel laureates, nuclear specialists, and former White House advisers–has sent an open letter to President-elect Donald Trump in support of the Iran nuclear deal.


RightWeb
share