Category Archives: russia

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Posted on by
14

It’s the 21st century, and a country has been invaded by the army of a shirtless man on a horse.

Russian President Vladimir Putin riding a horse

Vladimir Putin. Russian President and shirtless equestrian.

As Russian troops march across Crimea and the Russian parliament considers the annexation of the territory from Ukraine, the international community is stumbling while watching a repeat of history. Six years ago the Russian bear reached its claw into Georgia and grabbed ahold of the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, tearing them away from that sovereign nation through military invasion and creating two Russian satellite states functioning under the guise of being newly independent republics.

The international community didn’t stop Russia then, and it likely won’t stop Russia now. Russian President Vladimir Putin has been emboldened by years of US, European, and UN inaction to stop him, whether in Georgia, Syria, Ukraine or anywhere else. Putin will do what Putin wants to do, as he has always done, and the international community will watch, sweat, and offer little more to Ukrainians than speeches and press conferences condemning what has happened to their country.

When the dust settles, it will be Putin who decides what happens to Crimea, not the US, Europe, the UN, or anyone else. And when Putin decides that the Russian bear will claw a line through Ukraine establishing Crimea as an independent republic and de facto Russian satellite, nobody should be the slightest bit surprised.

Russian President Putin will not yield. German President Angela Merkel recently concluded after her phone call with Putin about the situation in Ukraine that Putin was “out of touch with reality.”

The question is, who’s reality is he out of touch with? Putin’s reality is shirtless horseback riding, shooting whales with crossbows, and hugging polar bears. Putin’s reality is supplying the Assad regime with weapons to massacre those struggling for freedom in Syria. Putin’s reality is invading neighboring countries to enforce his will on them at the tip of a bayonet.

The fact is, Putin’s reality is reality. Inaction on Georgia, Syria, and (so far) Ukraine has supplanted any reality of international law or standards with Putin’s reality, and for years now we have been living in Putin’s world.

Before another nation is invaded by Russia, before protestors in another country are silenced by Russian weapons, before Russia rewrites international norms of conduct and inspires other countries to begin enforcing their will through unprovoked military action, Putin must be stopped.

The reaction by the international community must be swift, punitive, and unequivocal in delivering the message that such aggression will not be tolerated in the 21st century. The fate of not only Ukraine, but the course of history in our time, depends on it.

(this article is available in French here)

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

Posted on by
5

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 2 (China)

China: The Evil Twin?

This article is Part 2 of Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes.  Part 1 can be found here.

This article is also available in Arabic (العربية) at Free Syrian Translators

As Russia equips the world’s authoritarian regimes with the means to discourage Western intervention, China is selling them one of the worst tools of oppression against their own people: artillery.

(Artillery, as defined by the FAS report, includes field and air defense artillery, mortars, rocket launchers and recoiless rifles and FROG launchers 100mm and over)

Artillery sold by China (2003-2010): 1,890

Artillery sold by the US (2003-2010): 390

Why artillery?  Assad’s shelling of Syrian cities like Homs shows how essential artillery is to waging an effective campaign against a popular uprising.

Map showing artillery damage after Assad's army bombed Homs Syria
Map showing artillery damage after Assad’s army bombed Homs, Syria

In Syria, the use of artillery by Bashar al-Assad has accomplished numerous goals:

  1. Artillery has allowed Assad to avoid the mistake that Muammar Gaddafi made – using airpower to bombard the opposition – which led to calls for a no-fly zone and eventually Western military intervention to remove the regime.
  2. Artillery bombardment allows the regime to kill not only freedom fighters but also civilians, reducing the pool of potential recruits and dramatically increasing the war weariness of the population.
  3. The large-scale destruction of towns and cities serves as a warning to the civilian population not to support the uprising, and discourages rebels from holding ground in cities because of the destruction the regime response will cause.
  4. Using artillery provides the regime with some plausible deniability of intent when civilian buildings are hit (such as hospitals or media centers) because it is indirect fire.
  5. Artillery allows the regime to bombard the enemy from a distance, keeping the army together so as to prevent individual units from defecting to the other side.

These Chinese artillery purchases are in addition to all of the Russian artillery already purchased by the regimes in the past and doesn’t even include the smaller mortars (60mm and 80mm).  Syria and other authoritarian regimes have acquired a truly massive stockpile of artillery rounds for leveling cities and destroying any uprising against their rule.

China has been particularly aggressive with artillery sales to Africa.  Algeria, Sudan, and Egypt (under Hosni Mubarak) have purchased the 155mm howitzers from China.  China shipped mortars and rockets to President Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe despite international pressure in 2008.

When the regimes don’t have enough cash to pay for the weapons China negotiates trade deals for the natural resources of the countries, allowing the regimes to further pillage the country and the resources of its people in exchange for the arms to remain in power.  This is part of the reason that China deals with pariah states under sanction by other countries; in their weakened state the regimes are forced to enter into resource deals on terms very benficial to China in exchange for weapons.  This allows China to expand influence in the Third World and obtain resources it depends on for economic growth.

Protecting Their Investment

The Russian and Chinese arms trade with authoritarian regimes isn’t just about money and resources.  Russia and China view themselves as superpowers intent on spreading their influence throughout the world.  Chinese weapons are viewed as cheap substitutes for Russian arms and as a consequence they’re the budget alternative for many authoritarian regimes.  With China’s focus on economic power as their means of influence in the world this presents an opportunity for them to ship cheap weapons to the Third World in exchange for favorable trade terms, natural resources, and establishing a foothold in developing countries.

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 1 (Russia)

Posted on by
10

Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes – Part 1 (Russia)

This article is Part 1 of Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes.  Part 2 can be found here.

This article is also available in Arabic (العربية) at Free Syrian Translators

Russia: The Evil Empire Revisited?

Wherever you find people fighting for their freedom you’ll find a regime killing them with Russian weapons.  During the Libyan civil war I was often under fire from Russian guns, grenades, rockets, and mortars used by Gaddafi’s forces, and I used captured Russian weapons myself on many occasions.

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke in the Libyan Civil War

Freedom Fighter Matthew VanDyke with his Russian DShK machine gun in the Libyan Civil War

There is no greater ally of authoritarianism in the world than Russia.  Russia obstructs intervention in Syria through the UN Security Council, while at the same time shipping weapons to Bashar al-Assad to ensure that he remains in power and a good customer for future arms deals.  Moscow has developed close relationships with several authoritarian regimes around the world that oppress their populations and abuse human rights using the weapons that Russia supplies.  As a result of the Arab Spring and a wave of democratization sweeping the world, Russia is watching its influence drain away like water from a busted dam and it doesn’t care how many bodies it takes to plug the leaks.

The FAS report “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010” contains Russia’s customer list for arms deals.  The usual suspects are all there:

Iran – Libya (under Gaddafi) – Syria – Algeria – Yemen – China – Sudan – Zimbabwe

For comparison, the United States’ main customers are:

Israel – Taiwan – Saudi Arabia – Egypt – Pakistan – India – Jordan

Some of these countries are authoritarian regimes and I have not listed every country that buys weapons from Russia and the USA, but the moral implications of the Russian and American customer lists are quite clear.  Although the US is not innocent of arms sales to questionable regimes, the actions of Russia and China are arguably appalling in their strategy and magnitude.

The Disturbing Pattern

The customer lists don’t tell the whole story.  A close examination of which weapons systems Russia is selling to these regimes reveals a strategy that appears designed specifically to discourage military intervention by the West against authoritarian regimes (such as occurred in Libya).  The evidence is in the numbers (I have also included the numbers of US weapons for comparison):

Surface-to-Air Missiles sold by Russia (2003-2010): 10,570

Surface-to-Air Missiles sold by the US (2003-2010): 1,427

Supersonic Combat Aircraft sold by Russia (2003-2010): 320

Supersonic Combat Aircraft sold by the US (2003-2010): 152

Helicopters sold by Russia (2003-2010): 390

Helicopters sold by the US (2003-2010): 138

Why would Russia be selling massive quantities of Surface-to-Air Missiles and air force assets to these regimes?  The answer is clear: to discourage Western military campaigns against their best customers.  It has worked in Syria where one of the arguments against Western airstrikes to support the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad is the strength of the regime’s air defenses and the massive undertaking it would be to dismantle them.  Their work is ongoing – in November 2011, Russia allegedly sent technical advisers to help set up very sophisticated S-300 surface-to-air missile defense systems in Syria and update Syrian radar systems around critical facilities.

Syria’s major weapons imports increased 580 percent between 2002-2006, and Russia supplied 78 percent of the arms to Syria during the 2007-2011 period.  These purchases included air defense and anti-ship missiles; the anti-ship missiles have a long range of 300km.  Syria received 7% of Russia’s $10 billion total arms deliveries in 2010.

Libya, Venezuela (a hybrid, partially authoritarian regime) and Burma (Myanmar) have all purchased surface-to-air missiles from Russia in recent years.  Russia also planned to sell S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Iran, clearly intending to discourage an American or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear program, but the sale has not taken place because of diplomatic pressure from the US and EU.

Protecting Their Investment

Russia, a shadow of the former Soviet Union, desperately seeks influence in the world through the arms trade.  Many of their customers purchased Soviet-era weapons systems and are reliant on Russia for repairs, replacements, upgrades and ammunition.  Russia also produces technologically advanced weaponry and sells it to regimes that the US and EU countries won’t deal with.  By doing so, Russia aims to counterbalance American influence in the world, protect its military and economic interests (as well as national ethos), and more recently to help stop the spread of democracy around the world that might lead to a Russian Spring arriving in Moscow.

Unfortunately, these games of international intrigue and influence are played on the backs of people suffering in the developing world in countries like Iran, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and until recently, Libya.

Click this link for Part 2: Russian and Chinese Arms Sales to Authoritarian Regimes (China).

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

Posted on by
21

The Failure of the United Nations in Syria

Today has proven that the United Nations is powerless to stop the Syrian civil war.

Kofi Annan says he’s “shocked” by the surge in violence and atrocities leading up to the April 10th deadline for Syrian regime forces to cease military operations. Journalists are writing stories that should have been written last week and saved in a folder for publication today – the outcome of this fiasco was that predictable.

The only thing “shocking” about the latest failure of the United Nations is that anybody is shocked by it.  The United Nations is a deeply flawed organization unable to accomplish its stated purposes, much less meet the needs and expectations of the multitudes of oppressed and suffering around the world who look to it in desperation as their last and only hope.

The Purpose of the United Nations

The United Nations charter lists four purposes of the organization (I have paraphrased them for brevity) in Chapter 1, Article 1.  Unfortunately, some of these purposes are mutually exclusive:

  1. Maintain international peace and security. The United Nations was founded in 1945 with the primary purpose of preventing a third world war, and to this day peace and security remains the paramount concern of the UN.  Everything else is a secondary consideration.
  2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. With this second purpose the scheme begins to unravel – a large number of UN member countries do not represent the self-determination of their population, nor does the UN make any substantial effort to demand self-determination among its members.  Only 78 of the 165 UN nations that are included in the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index are democracies, and 52 of the 165 members are authoritarian regimes (the remainder are hybrid systems of government). This creates a situation where a UN vote by the United States represents the interests (through democratic elections) of its 312 million people.  Syria, by contrast, represents the interests of one man – Bashar al-Assad, not the 20 million people of Syria.  The “friendly relations among nations” are based on respect for the self-determination of a single person in 1/3 of the member nations, not on the self-determination of peoples.  In other words, of the nearly 7 billion people represented by the United Nations, the 3.39 billion of them who live in democratic or flawed democratic countries have their interests represented in the UN, while 2.6 billion people suffer the will of 52 despots and their supporters who use UN membership for their own interests.
  3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. The UN seeks international cooperation to achieve these goals and has a mixed record of success doing so.  The reason is obvious – when 1/3 of the member states are authoritarian regimes with little respect for human rights or fundamental freedoms, how much cooperation can there possibly be on these issues?
  4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends. Kumbaya.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index

2011 Democracy Index - The United Nations (Dark green countries are the most democratic, dark red countries are the most authoritarian)

The UN Security Council

The UN Security Council is where the power lies with regards to conflicts like Libya and Syria and it is arguably the most malignant cancer infecting the United Nations.  The Security Council consists of five permanent members with veto power: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China.  The latter two countries are the problem.

How did Russia and China find themselves on the Security Council?  The council members were the countries that won WWII.  This meant the Republic of China and the Soviet Union, not the People’s Republic of China and Russia.  The Republic of China was a democratic country exiled to Taiwan during the Chinese Civil War in 1949, and the communist victors of the war took over the seat at the Security Council in 1971.  Russia inherited its seat on the Security Council after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

For the past 65 years Russia and China have been a force of oppression by acting as the primary backers of authoritarian regimes around the world.  Wherever you find a dictator killing his own people you’ll find him using Russian weapons to do it.  I was on the receiving end of Russian bullets, rockets, and mortars while fighting in the Libyan civil war.  China boosts authoritarian state economies with foreign investment (and supplies them with weapons as well.)  Both Russia and China also protect authoritarian regimes through obstructionism on the UN Security Council.  In recent years they have successfully shielded Iran, North Korea and now, Syria.

A Security Council with a Communist, authoritarian China and a deeply flawed, quasi-democratic Russia whose foreign policy is focused on supporting authoritarian regimes around the world as permanent members with veto power makes the UN charter’s stated purpose #2 (self-determination) and #3 (human rights and freedom) impossible to achieve.

The United Nations has become like a Superhero who consults the villains before deciding whether to save the city.

Reforming the United Nations

If the United Nations wishes to remain relevant in a 21st century world as an organization that can achieve the goals stated in its own charter, it is imperative that one of two things happen.

  1. The UN charter is re-written to remove provisions #2 (equal rights and self-determination) and #3 (promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms).  Both of these purposes are impossible to achieve with Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council, so the existence of these two stated purposes makes the UN doomed to perpetual failure as an organization.
  2. Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council is revoked

The second option is clearly preferable.  Many arguments can be made to support revoking Russia’s permanent membership on the Security Council, but three of them stand out as most prescient:

  1. There is no provision for succession in the UN charter, so the legality of Russia inheriting the seat of the Soviet Union is in question.
  2. The Soviet Union was given permanent status as a world superpower.  Russia represents not only a fraction of the former Soviet Union territory and people, but is far from a superpower – it is an aspiring world power (at best).
  3. Russia has a pattern of obstructionism through the Security Council that endangers world peace and security, thus undermining the very purpose of the Security Council.  Furthermore, Russia’s support of authoritarian regimes makes fulfillment of UN purposes #2 and #3 impossible.

The case for revoking the People’s Republic of China’s membership as a permanent member of the Security Council is more complicated.  The People’s Republic of China did succeed the Republic of China as a UN member following their conquest of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, but United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 in 1971 put an end to any effective legal argument against China’s status on the Security Council.  Furthermore, China is inarguably a world superpower.

However, China has never vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on its own; China so far has only vetoed when Russia does.  Removing Russia as a permanent member of the Security Council would at least encourage China to abstain on some Security Council resolutions it disagrees with rather than be a lone veto.

Unfortunately, the chance of Russia losing its permanent member status is about the same as Assad surrendering himself to the International Criminal Court.  The only possible reform of the Security Council is expanding the permanent membership to include additional countries (democratic ones), a proposal that has been gaining support in recent years.  This would dilute the perceived legitimacy of vetoes by Russia or China by having more countries opposed to such vetoes.

The Way Forward

Failing to enact necessary reforms that begin with changes in the Security Council, the United Nations will continue to be largely irrelevant beyond its primary mission of maintaining international peace and security, for which it has a mixed but acceptable record of success.  For this purpose the UN should be supported.

After today’s deadline on Syria nobody should remain under the delusion that the United Nations can advance freedom, self-determination, or human rights.  If anything, the fact that the primary mission of the UN is stability and peace means that it will often be diametrically opposed to the cause of freedom around the world since in many cases, Syria included, freedom and self-determination can only be achieved through war.  Peace and freedom are often mutually exclusive concepts and throughout history it has often been revolutions and civil wars that paved the way to freedom and liberty.

Stability means preserving the status quo, and for 1/3 of the world’s population the status quo means living under authoritarianism.

Was Kofi Annan really “shocked” that Assad’s regime intensified military action as the deadline for a ceasefire drew near?  Did Annan really believe that he would achieve anything other than helping Assad by delivering a public relations victory and providing the regime with some diplomatic cover as it escalated violence against the Syrian people?  Was he just leading the United Nations through the motions of diplomacy, having the UN act to save face so the diplomats could say they tried something?  Or is Annan suffering from delusions of grandeur so profound that he really believed he could successfully negotiate the beginning of the end of civil war in Syria and pave the way for the voluntary departure of Assad and a transition to democracy?

Did Kofi Annan, with all his experience and past success, really believe that the Syrian regime, which tortures children, summarily executes its own citizens, and has mocked the international community for decades, could be an honest and reliable partner in negotiations?  Could he not predict that the regime would ruthlessly press their advance against the opposition in the days leading up to April 10, taking a deadline as a greenlight for action in advance of it?  Is Annan (and the UN at large) so incapable of empathizing with both the Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army that he believed the two sides would negotiate after a year of revolution that has claimed 10,000 lives and left both sides in an all-or-nothing, irreversible position?

But it really doesn’t matter what Annan and the UN was thinking – the end result is very clear.  The Syrian civil war will continue, Assad will remain in power, and nothing short of a military victory by the Free Syrian Army is likely to remove him and bring peace and security, and most importantly freedom and self-determination, to Syria.

It is also clear that Russia and China will continue to protect Assad as permanent members of the UN Security Council.

The UN has only one opportunity left to play a role in Syria – persuade Russia that Assad cannot be reasoned with and must be removed from power.  It is possible that Kofi Annan knew that Syria would fail to honor the April 10 deadline all along, which would allow him to show Russia that their preferred strategy would not work with Assad and that other measures were needed. The problem with giving Annan and the UN the benefit of the doubt in this case is that Russia should have been able to exert more influence on Assad if they really felt that their ability to support him was in jeopardy, and because it is highly unlikely that Russia will ever back down on Syria; the Russians believe Assad’s rule can survive and they have already invested considerable political capital supporting him.

The United Nations has its uses.  The chance of world war is virtually non-existent, partly due to the existence of the UN.  Occasionally positive agreements are reached and the UN has managed to extinguish some conflicts before they spiraled out of control.  But the UN should never be expected to fulfill any mission of advancing freedom, human rights, or self-determination – it can rarely do so effectively with 1/3 of its members being authoritarian regimes and 2/5 of the Security Council willing to protect many of those regimes using their veto power.

The United Nations is focused on peace, stability, and diplomacy.  There is no role for any of this in Syria.  Any organization that has peace and security as its primary mission is an obstruction to the cause of freedom in Syria, and any actions by the UN other than military intervention will only serve to strengthen Assad and prolong the suffering of the Syrian people.  For every action like today’s expired deadline, the UN will only soil its hands with more Syrian blood by prolonging the war and strengthening Assad’s grip on power.

The time has come for the nations of the free world to act unilaterally in the cause of freedom and human rights in Syria. Let the United Nations be where the democratic countries meet with the 52 authoritarian ones to discuss matters of peace and security. But have NATO do what it can to eliminate as many of those 52 as possible when the opportunities present themselves, as in Syria now.

At the very least, it is time to provide the Free Syrian Army with what is required to win the war. The Gulf Cooperation Council should send arms, Turkey should help establish a buffer zone in Syria, and the West should continue to provide equipment and intel to hasten the fall of the regime.

When the UN is comprised of democratic countries that actually do represent the principles of freedom and self-determination, then we can focus on achieving world peace.

The Syria Game

Posted on by
17

The Syria Game

The leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, recently called on Al-Qaeda fighters to join the revolution in Syria and help overthrow Bashar al-Assad.  That the United States and al-Qaeda find themselves on the same side in Syria highlights the complexity of the conflict.

Syria is about more than just Syria.  Its geographic location, ethnic and religious divisions, ties to Iran and Hezbollah, influence in Lebanon, relationships with Russia and China, vast chemical weapons program, conflict with Israel, and pivotal role in the Arab Spring movement has made it the center of a geopolitical struggle that extends far beyond Syria’s borders.

The Syrian Civil War is well on its way to becoming a proxy war, much like the Lebanese Civil War of the 1970s and 80s.  It is also part of a larger strategic rivalry between East and West, much like The Great Game between the British and Russian Empires in Central Asia during the 19th and 20th centuries.

The players in this new Great Game in Syria have chosen their sides and have enough at stake that they’ll do almost anything to win.

Team Assad

Map of the most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria

The most influential countries supporting the regime of Bashar al-Assad

Russia and China

Russia is engaged in a desperate bid for survival and relevancy in a rapidly changing world.  It has declined from a world superpower to a flawed, corrupt, quasi-democratic, largely dysfunctional shadow of its former self that is desperately grasping at spheres of influence that are steadily shrinking away.  Most of these spheres of influence are in the Arab world, Asia, and Africa, where the Russians maintain significant economic and military interests.  In Syria, these include billions of dollars in defense contracts and Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base (at the Syrian port of Tartus.)

China is a rising power with similar economic and military interests in Syria.  More importantly, both Russia and China realize that the Arab Spring is just the beginning of a wave of revolutions likely to spread across the globe, and that eventually the Arab Spring will morph into a Russian and Chinese Spring that will land at their doorsteps.  They will do whatever they can, from obstructing the United Nations to advising, arming, and supporting authoritarian regimes, in order to slow the advance of democracy around the world.

Iran

Iran and Syria have an extremely close relationship that has endured for over 30 years.  They are both ruled by Shia Muslims, are opponents of Israel, and provide funding and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  Iran will do everything in its power to prevent the fall of the Assad regime because it would eliminate their strongest Arab ally, choke off Hezbollah, deny them territory from which to launch attacks against Israel, and drastically reduce Iranian influence in the Arab Middle East.  Iran also fears that once Syria falls, Iran will be among the next countries to experience a popular uprising that threatens their own regime.

Iraq

Iraq, run by a Shia-dominated government that maintains a close relationship with Iran, has supported Assad throughout the uprising.  Iraq fears that a civil war punctuated by sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni could spill over the border and reignite more serious problems in Iraq.  There is no doubt that close ties with Iran also guide their support of the Assad regime.

Hezbollah

Hezbollah receives support from Syria, and funding and weapons from Iran.  The removal of Assad would be devastating to them, and if it paved the way for regime change in Iran as well, the organization would be unlikely to survive.

Lebanon

Hezbollah’s political alliance, “March 8,” has been the ruling coalition in Lebanon since 2011.  Although the rival “March 14” Alliance and the majority of Lebanon’s population support the uprising against Assad, Hezbollah will use their political power to keep Lebanon in Assad’s corner, or at least on the sidelines.

Team Free Syrian Army

Map of the most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The most influential countries supporting the Free Syrian Army

The West

The United States and Europe are driven by a belief in democracy and human rights.  Although they have turned a blind eye to many protest movements in the past and considered regional stability their main priority (as evidenced by the tepid response to Egypt’s uprising against Mubarak), public outcry driven by social media has combined with a realization that the Arab Spring is unstoppable and that their political, economic, and strategic interests are best served by allying with the winning side (the revolutionaries) who will form the governments of the future.

The United States and Europe also want to remove Assad because it would severely weaken Iran strategically and politically.  Regime change in Syria, combined with economic sanctions, the covert war currently being waged against Iran, and the likelihood that Iranian nuclear facilities will be bombed within the next year, could help incite an Iranian Spring and the downfall of the regime.

The West’s enthusiasm for the revolution in Syria is nevertheless tempered by concerns that a militarized, post-Assad Syria could result in a failed state that would be disastrous for regional security, especially for the security of Israel.  The fact that Syria has one of the largest chemical weapons programs in the world and the likelihood that some of these weapons will end up in the hands of terrorists after the war ends dramatically exacerbates those concerns.

Al-Qaeda

Assad’s regime is among several secular governments in the Middle East that have long been on al-Qaeda’s target list.  They are especially motivated to fight since Assad and his regime are Alawite Shia Muslims, considered heretics by al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda views Syria as an opportunity to join the right side of a popular revolution, and by doing so gain popularity and new recruits, weapons, and influence.  The overthrow of Assad is also central to their belief system, as the Islamic faith mandates helping oppressed Muslims.

Turkey

Turkey has no interest in a protracted, years-long civil war on its border.  But the calculations that led them to provide sanctuary to the Free Syrian Army run much deeper.  Turkey has had a contentious relationship with Syria and Iran over their neighbors’ sponsorship of Kurdish PKK insurgents who are fighting Turkey’s government.  Turkey now sees an opportunity to cut off the PKK’s funding and supply lines by removing Assad from power.  They have gone all-in on the Syrian uprising, as an Assad victory would be a significant boost to the PKK, and result in a contentious relationship that could impact regional trade for years.

The GCC

The Gulf Cooperation Council, with Saudi Arabia and Qatar as its most vocal critics of Assad, is siding with the Syrian protestors because the majority of them are Sunni, and because they want good relations with the new government after Assad falls.  They also want to weaken Iran.  While it may seem hypocritical for the authoritarian regimes of the GCC to be supporting popular uprisings, they have calculated that it is better to be seen as supportive of the Arab Spring, thereby diminishing calls for reform in their own countries.

The Game Has Begun…

All of these players in the Syrian game make the debate about foreign intervention rather meaningless.  Foreign intervention is already taking place.  The United Nations has been rendered useless by Russian and Chinese obstructionism, and the game is now being played through covert action, supplying weapons to the rebels, and diplomatic maneuvering.  The players of this game intend to win at almost any cost.  Although the outcome of the Syrian Civil War appears to favor the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, the amount of time it takes and the number of lives that are lost will be largely dependent on who plays the game the best.

The Lebanese Civil War should serve as a cautionary tale for foreign intervention in Syria.  That proxy war lasted 15 years with over 1 million killed or wounded.  The similar demographics and sectarian divisions in Syria virtually ensure a repeat scenario if the international community plays the game the same way in Lebanon.

The countries that support a free Syria must intervene in an unambiguous, direct way that signals a full commitment to the removal of Assad.  The Syrian rebels must consolidate under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.  Once they have done this, they must be well-equipped with all of the weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and supplies needed to defeat Assad as quickly as possible.

Foreign intervention in Libya helped us win the war far more quickly and with fewer casualties than would have been possible on our own.  The NATO campaign was not only strategically important, but it signaled an international commitment to the removal of Gaddafi that led to far more Libyans joining the rebel ranks.  Once this happened, we were unstoppable.

The international community has the ability, and the obligation, to ensure that the outcome of the Syrian Civil War looks like Libya, not Lebanon.

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf Syria

Matthew VanDyke with his Kawasaki KLR650 motorcycle at the Castle of Assassins in Musyaf, Syria