Civil wars are ugly; they pit neighbors against neighbors, stripping them of their human value and decency and turning them into violent killing machines. People from diverse ethnic groups, religions and cultures who had co-existed peacefully suddenly are bitter foes, vowing to wipe each other off the surface of the earth. Ultimately, there are no winners as thousands are killed, millions displaced and societies destroyed.
The civil strife in Syria is a sad and horrendous spectacle. So far, it has claimed a 100,000 Syrian lives and 2 million Syrians have taken refuge in neighboring Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon. Who would have thought that Syria would degenerate into chaos and violence? After all, for much of the last four decades, the country had been ruled by the iron fist of the Assad family. Dissension was not tolerated, and political opponents were swiftly silenced.
However, in 2011, things began to change as Syrians taking a cue from their brethren in Tunisia began agitating for political change. Their demands were met with a clampdown by the Syrian Army. Thus began the long and painful descent into violence.
President Bashar al Assad supported by China and Russia is determined to hold on to power. His opponents, a ragtag collection of rebels, Islamists, thugs, opportunists and mercenaries, financed primarily by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, are just as determined to see him go. So, a once a peaceful and stable nation, Syria is headed for an ugly splinter, broken up into separate entities for Sunnis, Shiites, Alawites and Christians…
For much of two years the world watched haplessly as Syrian civilians took the brunt of the daily barrage of aerial and ground assaults from government forces. However, when chemical weapons were alleged used by the Assad regime on August 21, there was an immediate response, led as usual by the United States. Syria had flouted international norms we were repeatedly told by a coterie of Obama administration officials.
Nearly a hundred years ago after the large scale use of chemical agents in the First World War, members of the newly formed League of Nations voted overwhelmingly to ban the use of such weapons in future wars. By gassing his own people, Assad had crossed the “redline” Obama said. He therefore had to pay the price for breaching international norms.
Threats of punitive airstrikes were made. However, before the US could take to the skies to punish Assad and the frightened dwellers of Damascus, the British said they wanted no part of it. Continental Europe with the sole exception of the French was not interested in yet another conflagration in the volatile Mid-East.
Caught off balance by this bit of unexpected news, Obama decided to seek the approval of the United States Congress. Americans, weary of war indicated in opinion polls (53 percent) that they were not exactly enthused about another war, particularly in that region of the world. Public opinion weighed heavily on members of Congress and there is every chance that if Obama had brought the issue to the House for a vote, he would have suffered a humiliating defeat, so experts say.
From all indications, Obama who had campaigned as a “no war” candidate in 2008 hated the idea of going to war. To demonstrate his disdain, Obama had pulled US troops out of Iraq and had laid down plans to get US forces out of Afghanistan by the close of 2014. Another war would tarnish his carefully cultivated image as a peacemaker after all, didn’t he win the Nobel Peace Prize the year he became president?
The world breathed a huge sigh of relief when Syria decided to give up its chemical weapons after much prodding from its ally, Russia. The U.S. had insisted on this concession from the Syrians to avert a strike. It is worth noting that this last minute diplomacy spared the world another debacle in the Middle East.
Truth be told, the U.S. is loathed bitterly in the Muslim world. It has earned this wrath primarily because of its heavy-handedness in resolving the issue of terrorism. In Pakistan, the method employed in combating terrorism—firing missiles from drones—-is despised by the population. Civilians have been accidentally killed in many drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen.
Not unexpected, there would have been howls of anger from the Muslim world if the West had intervened in the Syrian conflict. A humanitarian gesture would have been interpreted wrongly as the U.S. attacking yet another Moslem country. Terror groups lurking in the dark would certainly have pounced on this latest action by the U.S. and its allies to recruits young men to mount attacks on civilians.
The conflict in Syria is an existential struggle between Assad who wants to preserve his sect, the Alawites, from eventual annihilation at the hands of the Sunnis were he to be defeated and the Sunnis who want to taste political power and all that its trappings for the first time.
However one sees it, the carnage in Syria is a blot on the conscience of the world which has watched haplessly as thousands of civilians are killed and maimed. Ultimately, the conflict would be resolved either through an outright defeat of the government or the rebels.
Many have expressed hopes for a political solution, but this approach has no chance of succeeding because the rebels control large tracts of land in northern Syria and would be loath give it up. And it should be noted that 50 percent of the rebels are die-hard Islamists who will settle for nothing less than an Islamic state. So, the world will continue to wring its hands as the killings continue.
Categories:
