Right Web

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

Q&A: U.S. Should Encourage NATO-Led Assistance to Syrian Opposition

One former CIA agent believes that NATO, via Turkey, should provide arms and a safe haven for the armed Syrian opposition.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

Intervention in Syria was “only a matter of time”, wrote Emile Nakhleh in February in the Financial Times. Seven months later, the fighting and divisions within Syria continue to worsen. Now, a diplomatic solution is no longer possible, Nakhleh, a retired CIA analyst, believes.

At the CIA, Nakhleh was a senior analyst and director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program and of regional analysis in the Middle East. During that time, he and his analysts briefed policymakers on how Bashar al-Assad used repression to maintain stability. Since retiring from the U.S. government in 2006, Nakhleh has served as a consultant to the government on national security issues, particularly Islamic radicalisation, terrorism, and Arab states.

An estimated 8,000 to 20,000 people have been killed and tens of thousands of Syrians have fled their homes into neighboring countries. The Obama administration has shown reluctance to become directly involved in the conflict.

IPS correspondent Jasmin Ramsey spoke with Nakhleh about the conflict in Syria and his belief that the longer the West waits to assist the rebels, with NATO and Turkey leading, the bloodier the conflict will become.

Experts from the interview follow, and the complete interview can be found here.

Q: What is your current assessment of the situation in Syria?

A: I wrote an article about Syria in the Financial Times in February and some of the things I wrote about then are happening now. Namely, there’s more talk about a security zone. The regime is basically fraying and is going to fall. The question is how it’s going to fall and what kind of chaos and instability will follow.

I’m not that concerned about these fears of instability and Islamic extremist groups. These fears are being pushed by the regime to scare people. The regime is saying, “We are providing security and stability and the alternative is insecurity and instability.” There are some Jihadist and Al Qaeda elements, but the fact is that those were also in Libya and some of them were in Tunisia.

Q: Why, then, is the United States saying that one of the reasons it’s not directly supporting the rebels is because it’s unsure who they are?

A: That is a legitimate excuse. In fact, that argument was one of the reasons that delayed our recognition of even the Libyan rebels in Benghazi and our action there. It was the same argument in Egypt. We kept hearing the word “leaderless”. Well, they are leaderless, we don’t know what leaders to deal with, and therefore we delay action.

But I suggest that assistance now from the U.S. and its NATO allies, especially Turkey, are crucial. I’m not saying necessarily direct military participation, but I consider the Syrian regime, as one Syrian expert recently said, a mafia. There’s no negotiating with them. They’re going to go down fighting and in the process destroying Syria and killing so many more.

Q: So what should support to the rebels look like?

A: The regime is strong in the air and tanks, so the rebels – through Turkey perhaps – need rocket-propelled grenades against tanks and stinger missiles against planes. They need to even the playing field in those two areas. The rebels also need ammunition.

We could recognise a geographic area, something like a safe haven contiguous to Turkey. Once we recognise that, then through Turkey we can send humanitarian assistance, medical aid, and other logistical assistance. I say Turkey because then we can go around the Security Council by saying that this is a NATO thing. We are members of NATO and so is Turkey, which could argue it feels threatened by the growing insecurity on its border.

Turkey can act, but we should also be wary a bit of Saudi and Qatari support.

Q: So Turkey is waiting for the “okay” from the U.S.?

A: Yes, but I’m not going to speak for anyone. But that’s why Turkey initially went to NATO as well and I think NATO’s role can be increased. I don’t mean flying there or doing a no-fly zone and protecting the people through NATO planes as they did in Libya.

What they can do is arm the opposition with anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons and the opposition can do the job. That’s an important distinction – it also will keep the Western and NATO powers more free to act.

Q: Is a diplomatic resolution no longer possible?

A: That time has passed because the regime is not interested in negotiating with the opposition.

If you listen to their propaganda, the opposition is labeled as foreign terrorists, and yet, what about these thousands of people that have been killed? Most of them are Syrians, they’re not foreigners. Those who are still talking about diplomacy are using it as a delay tactic while providing their own form of assistance. But now it’s time to fully assist the rebels without necessarily putting boots on the ground.

Q: But just to be clear, what should the U.S.’s role be in all this?

A: Encouragement and logistical and communications support. According to media reports, the U.S. already has contacts with the opposition and is perhaps already providing covert support in the areas of control, command, intelligence, and communications.

But I don’t expect the U.S., as we are heading toward the presidential election, to play a major open military role in Syria. Necessary weapons could be provided by Turkey, with NATO’s approval, to help the opposition save their own towns and save lives.

I was never really in favour of direct and massive military action in Syria. I have argued elsewhere that military action should develop gradually. The opposition already controls a safe zone and other geographic areas in rural and urban Syria.

When I wrote the FT column, there were no geographic areas that were under the control of the opposition. Now there are areas that the regime does not control – take the statement made by the prime minister who recently defected, speaking in Jordan, who said the regime now controls 30 percent.

That’s difficult to verify, but most observers agree that there are areas that the regime doesn’t control, next to Turkey, and elsewhere. If that’s true, the opposition obviously controls these areas. So then we can recognise that territory, deal with the opposition that’s there on the ground—civilian and military leadership.

We can engage Syrian politicians in Turkey or somewhere else and the Syrian National Council, and then start providing needed support—humanitarian, medical, food, fuel, munitions, et cetera, in order for the Syrian opposition to be able to defend its own people.

Jasmin Ramsey is a contributor to Inter Press Service.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Although sometimes characterized as a Republican “maverick” for his bipartisan forays into domestic policy, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks.


Former CIA director Michael Hayden, a stalwart advocate of the Bush-era policies on torture and warrantless wiretapping, has been a vocal critic of Donald Trump


The former GOP presidential candidate and Speaker of the House has been a vociferous proponent of the idea that the America faces an existential threat from “Islamofascists.”


David Albright is the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, a non-proliferation think tank whose influential analyses of nuclear proliferation issues in the Middle East have been the source of intense disagreement and debate.


A right-wing Christian and governor of Kansas, Brownback previously served in the U.S. Senate, where he gained a reputation as a leading social conservative as well as an outspoken “pro-Israel” hawk on U.S. Middle East policy.


Steve Forbes, head of the Forbes magazine empire, is an active supporter of a number of militarist policy organizations that have pushed for aggressive U.S. foreign policies.


Stephen Hadley, an Iraq War hawk and former national security adviser to President George W. Bush, now chairs the U.S. Institute for Peace.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share