Last Update: Sunday, 23 June 2013 KSA 11:56 - GMT 08:56
Why America should intervene in Syria
I heard Farid Zakariya disagree with American Senator John McCain's call to support the Syrian revolution against Assad's regime to topple it. His justification is that the overall outcome will be much worse.
Speaking on CNN, he said that the solution is to stay away from the Syrian conflict because the United States may, if it interferes, may get implicated in a complex conflict, and the result will not be as desired, it will be terrible.
Zakariya’s call to just sit and watch television, thinking that this would spare the superpower the consequences of a war later on, is wrong. There are three future fears that are supposed to worry the man in the White House before he goes to bed.
Speaking on CNN, he said that the solution is to stay away from the Syrian conflict because the United States may, if it interferes, may get implicated in a complex conflict, and the result will not be as desired, it will be terrible.
Zakariya’s call to just sit and watch television, thinking that this would spare the superpower the consequences of a war later on, is wrong. There are three future fears that are supposed to worry the man in the White House before he goes to bed.
America’s three fears
The first is the end of Iran's siege of Syria. Obama is the first American president since Regan's era who punished Iran with actions, not just words. He's the only one who implemented economic sanctions instead of just threatening to implement them. The sanctions on Iran during the past two years have been more painful and effective than anything that Washington did in the past 20 years.
The required support doesn't aim to topple the regime itself, but it aims to empower the role of the Free Syrian Army to make it the supreme military authority so it fights all powers against the law when the regime falls.Abdulrahman al-Rashed
But Syria represents a major pillar in Iran's defense policy. If Assad collapses, it will lose its most important ally and it will weaken. This is what more than one military and civil leader expressed to justify going to Syria to fight. So if Washington is pursing Iran across the world to prevent it from selling its oil or exchanging its currency with dollars, why does it let it win in Syria? Meaning, why does it let it impose its authority on Iraq, Syria and Lebanon? This is if Washington is really concerned with besieging Iran, either to force it to alter its stance on its nuclear program or to weaken it regionally.
The second fear is al-Qaeda's rise. American intelligence currently doesn't tire with pursuing some tens of al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. So how can it ignore Syria when it has become the largest hotbed in the world for al-Qaeda fighters whose numbers are now double that in Yemen? After one or two years, Washington will be forced to confront the new al-Qaeda in Syria. A media report reminded many of the arrest of a cell that recruits youth in the Moroccan city of Sabta under Spanish rule. Imagine the depth of recruitment activity that spreads in the Islamic world and outside it by using Syria as an excuse!
The third reason is the spillover beyond Syria's borders. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are threatened because of the repercussions of the Syrian crisis. The Assad regime wants to export its crisis to its neighbors. Today, one fifth of Jordan's residents are Syrian refugees. And the number will double in a year from now since the Syrian capital is only a one-hour drive from Jordanian borders. So how will the U.S. deal with the repercussions of a war against regimes that support it?
It's for these three reasons that the U.S. will inevitably find itself forced to intervene. All of these will happen: Iran's expansion in Syria, the rise of al-Qaeda and the threat against neighboring Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
What Zakariya is saying is true. It's true that intervening to prevent massacres may prevent the regime's crimes and may also allow for some rebels to commit their own crimes. But not intervening will make Washington's influence on the events weak.
Since the humanitarian tragedy is no longer motive enough to move the American public opinion to intervene, particularly since failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the real motive in Syria is to prevent the occurrence of upcoming huge disasters that will affect the world's security.
When we speak of intervening, we don't mean an intervention similar to the Iraqi and Somali models. We don't mean direct intervention by involving forces on ground, but an intervention in logistically supporting rebels and empowering them.
To the Americans who cast doubts under the excuse that they don't benefit from toppling Assad to replace him with power vacuum or terrorist groups, I say two things. The first thing is that Assad will inevitably fall no matter how long the war will be. The second thing is that the West will then find itself with no ally in Syria. The required support doesn't aim to topple the regime itself, but it aims to empower the role of the Free Syrian Army to make it the supreme military authority so it fights all powers against the law when the regime falls. In other words, the FSA will play an important role like the Yemeni, Mali or Tunisian governments. Without its support, who will tomorrow fight Iranian groups, Hezbollah fighters and al-Qaeda? What we are saying is support the FSA and the moderate political opposition in order to establish a regime capable of bearing it international and national responsibility.
This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on June 23, 2013.
_______
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
The second fear is al-Qaeda's rise. American intelligence currently doesn't tire with pursuing some tens of al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. So how can it ignore Syria when it has become the largest hotbed in the world for al-Qaeda fighters whose numbers are now double that in Yemen? After one or two years, Washington will be forced to confront the new al-Qaeda in Syria. A media report reminded many of the arrest of a cell that recruits youth in the Moroccan city of Sabta under Spanish rule. Imagine the depth of recruitment activity that spreads in the Islamic world and outside it by using Syria as an excuse!
The third reason is the spillover beyond Syria's borders. Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are threatened because of the repercussions of the Syrian crisis. The Assad regime wants to export its crisis to its neighbors. Today, one fifth of Jordan's residents are Syrian refugees. And the number will double in a year from now since the Syrian capital is only a one-hour drive from Jordanian borders. So how will the U.S. deal with the repercussions of a war against regimes that support it?
It's for these three reasons that the U.S. will inevitably find itself forced to intervene. All of these will happen: Iran's expansion in Syria, the rise of al-Qaeda and the threat against neighboring Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey.
What Zakariya is saying is true. It's true that intervening to prevent massacres may prevent the regime's crimes and may also allow for some rebels to commit their own crimes. But not intervening will make Washington's influence on the events weak.
Since the humanitarian tragedy is no longer motive enough to move the American public opinion to intervene, particularly since failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, then the real motive in Syria is to prevent the occurrence of upcoming huge disasters that will affect the world's security.
When we speak of intervening, we don't mean an intervention similar to the Iraqi and Somali models. We don't mean direct intervention by involving forces on ground, but an intervention in logistically supporting rebels and empowering them.
To the Americans who cast doubts under the excuse that they don't benefit from toppling Assad to replace him with power vacuum or terrorist groups, I say two things. The first thing is that Assad will inevitably fall no matter how long the war will be. The second thing is that the West will then find itself with no ally in Syria. The required support doesn't aim to topple the regime itself, but it aims to empower the role of the Free Syrian Army to make it the supreme military authority so it fights all powers against the law when the regime falls. In other words, the FSA will play an important role like the Yemeni, Mali or Tunisian governments. Without its support, who will tomorrow fight Iranian groups, Hezbollah fighters and al-Qaeda? What we are saying is support the FSA and the moderate political opposition in order to establish a regime capable of bearing it international and national responsibility.
This article was first published in Asharq al-Awsat on June 23, 2013.
_______
Abdulrahman al-Rashed is the General Manager of Al Arabiya News Channel. A veteran and internationally acclaimed journalist, he is a former editor-in-chief of the London-based leading Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, where he still regularly writes a political column. He has also served as the editor of Asharq al-Awsat’s sister publication, al-Majalla. Throughout his career, Rashed has interviewed several world leaders, with his articles garnering worldwide recognition, and he has successfully led Al Arabiya to the highly regarded, thriving and influential position it is in today.
No comments:
Post a Comment