Amid growing controversies, the Obama administration has adopted a
common political tactic: get involved in a war. The President previously said
there was a ‘red line’ for President Assad of Syria and that, if crossed, the
United States would support the FSA (Free Syrian Army) rebels in Syria. Last
week it was reported that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on the rebels
and the United States will now support the FSA with small arms and other
support[1].
It is still unclear how extensive American support for the rebels will be given
that we have only been told small arms will be sent, but it has been reported
that 300 marines are now in Syria for the transfer of arms[2].
Also, the CIA will be responsible for arming and training the rebels[3].
Russia has come forward saying the evidence the US has against the
Assad regime isn’t conclusive and Putin is backing Assad[4].
The question that needs to be addressed is, why is the United States
getting involved in a civil war in Syria? Typically, the US gets involved in
the interest of national security. This isn’t the case with Syria; the
expressed reason for sending military aid to Syria is because there is evidence
that Assad used chemical weapons on the FSA rebels. The fact remains that the
conflict is staying contained within the nation and there hasn’t been an
increased threat of terrorism against the US.
Also, reports say the casualties of this civil war are in the area of
93,000 people[5]
and the amount killed by chemical weapons is around 100 to 150[6].
This hardly seems to justify intervention solely on the basis of evidence of
chemical weapons use.
There have also been reports that individuals fighting with the Syrian
rebels have links to Al Qaeda. Back in December of 2010, the London Telegraph
reported that multiple groups pledged allegiance to Jabhat Al-Nusra, which the
White House has linked to Al Qaeda[7].
Since this link has been made, the US is trying to say they will ensure that
weapons will not fall into the wrong hands. I for one don’t trust this claim,
given that the US wasn’t even able to track its own guns from the Fast and
Furious program[8].
Without having a presence on the ground to control the flow of arms, there is
no telling where these weapons could end up. Also, if the US does decide to
give anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels, these could easily be sold to radical
Islamists in the region once the war is over.
Given that the allegiance of the rebels is questionable at best, it’s
hard to understand why someone like John McCain is pushing for arming the
rebels with anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons[9].
The record of the US arming rebel forces isn’t exactly a good one. The last
time we funded weapons to rebel groups without direct intervention we ended up
back there fighting the people we supplied, Al Qaeda. In 2001 USA Today
reported that the United States gave 25 sniper rifles to the fighters in
Afghanistan to be used fighting the Soviet Union[10].
During the 80s and early 90s the US was pumping weapons to these rebel forces
to fight against the Soviets, and we ended up having to go there to fight
against the very people we supplied. It was American foreign policy from Carter
to Reagan to expand what was known as “Operation Cyclone” which had the CIA
supply weapons to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan[11].
We don’t even need to go that far back to see that arming the rebel
opposition might not give us the benefits we desire. In October of 2011, Gaddafi was removed from
power in Libya. It hasn’t exactly gone as well as one would hope; according to
the Daily Mail, “Up to 3,000 surface-to-air missiles have gone missing in Libya
since the conflict - and spy chiefs say
the state has become the 'Tesco' of the world's illegal arms trade”[12]. Then we have the regime change in Egypt,
where there hasn’t exactly been stability; millions of people there “have
signed a national petition demanding the president resign” and violence is
expected to erupt again[13].
It has been demonstrated that small scale intervention in local rebel
groups are ineffective in the past and the present. It is still unclear the
true motives behind President Obama’s reasons for sending aid to the FSA
rebels. The very fact that Saudi Arabia
will be supplying the Syrian rebels with anti-aircraft missiles[14]
makes me think we might be on the wrong side. But the other side means we would
back the Assad government, allying with Russia, which also doesn’t seem like a
good idea. But that’s the issue; there isn’t a side that needs to be chosen.
This sort of small scale intervention on behalf of small rebel groups doesn’t
end well. It ends up being a way in which large nations use small nations to
war against each other. Given the lack of a threat to the United States there
isn’t proper justification for intervention. The United States has been engaged
in conflicts across the globe for decades. It’s time to stop policing the
world.
No comments:
Post a Comment