While the Obama administration continues its shameful dithering on Syria, the violence, which has been going on for more than a year, is accelerating. The latest news is that two car bombs have exploded in the center of Damascus, near an intelligence headquarters, killing at least 55 people and injuring more than 350 others.
These types of attacks are a hallmark of al-Qaeda in Iraq. All indications are that this terrorist organization has now migrated from western Iraq into neighboring Syria where it is, in effect, stoking another sectarian war pitting majority Sunnis against the ruling Alawite minority (a Shi’ite offshoot sect). Meanwhile, there are credible reports of Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s Shi’ite-dominated government apparently helping Bashar al-Assad’s regime, especially by serving as a conduit for Iranian assistance. In other words, a deadly sectarian civil war is under way in Syria, and one that, like previous civil wars in Lebanon and Iraq, is drawing in its neighbors. We could be in for years of hellish, destabilizing violence.
There is only way to restore some semblance of peace, and that is to topple the Assad regime as expeditiously as possible. But that won’t happen until the U.S. gets off the sidelines and, in cooperation with our allies, extends more aid to the badly outgunned rebels. This New York Times article makes clear the rebels are a mixed bag: some are sectarian, others Islamist, still others more liberal in their orientation. Obviously, al-Qaeda and its ilk are part of the mix. But far from that being a reason not to help the rebels, it is all the more reason why we must step forward so as to empower more moderate rebel groups. Otherwise, we will leave an opening for the most extreme jihadists to come to the fore.
"Meanwhile, there are credible reports of Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki’s Shi’ite-dominated government apparently helping Bashar al-Assad’s regime, especially by serving as a conduit for Iranian assistance." n nUgh! The great Iragi experiment bringing the beacon of democracy to the Mideast at the expense of American lives and our children's tax dollars is not sounding like such a great investment given the rush to exit prematurely.
The key phrase in your comment is "the rush to exit prematurely." Or to put it slightly differently, throwing away a huge victory for the sake of short-term political gain. The fact of the matter is that Obama never had any interest whatsoever in leveraging the U.S. position in Iraq through a long-term strategic agreement that would have given the U.S. a greater voice in Iraqi policies. Like so many things in his life, Obama just punted and walked away.
So it should draw in us? This approach did not work all that well for Brer Wolf of tar baby fame. So, obviously, AQ are "part of the mix"–so naturally we should empower the moderates by giving them TOWs and machine guns. And then we'll have our own clique of moderate street fighters. At worst this is all oxymoronic, at best its a rosy scenario in denial of past experience of the morning after the helicopter ammo drop the night before.
Would it not be much more honest for Boot to admit that neither a regime ruled by the Sunnis (whether described as "moderates" or "Islamists") nor Assad's Alawite minority gang probably will pursue policies in the interests of either the United States or of Israel? And would it not be better to clearly state that if Sunnis and Alawites continue killing each other that it will bleed Assad's regime and make it a very unreliable ally of the Iranians? Or does Boot belong to that group of ultra-brilliant realists that believes a "moderate" or pro-western Sunni regime could make peace with Israel (Israel of course having to surrender the extremely strategic Golan Heights – always part of Israel until gifted by the British colonialists to the French colonialists)? Perhaps we should clearly state that what may be in the interests of Arabs (moderate or not) is not always in the interests of the United States and certainly not that of Israel.
The U.S. need not be "drawn in" to the Syrian civil war in order to exert influence and at least attempt to push the outcome in a direction that will be beneficial to U.S. national interests. The civil war in Syria will keep Assad busy and out of Israel's hair for the foreseeable future and less likely to be the Iranian cat's paw in the region. With some real skill (which I personally doubt the U.S. possesses after starving its human intel services for so many decades), it might be possible to get rid of Assad and see a realignment of Syria with the West that could transform the region, including Israel, Lebanon and Jordan, not to mention provide a counterweight of sorts to Iraq and Turkey. At the very least, the U.S. needs to have its own player in the game that can affect the course of the civil war, even if that is only an enclave or autonomous region like the Kurds in Iraq.
The best approach would be neither help anyone nor ignore anyone but to quietly foment a level of anarchy that demands Syria's patron states to be involved themselves. Make Syria Iran's Vietnam. And as far as Syrian refugees running to Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan is concerned, so what? That's what the UN is for. Let UNRWA and the other UN refugee agency fight it out amongst themselves. Hell, declare everyone everywhere a Palestinian refugee – that way they can sit in squalor for the next 10 generations bemoaning their 'expulsion' from Syria.
declare them displaced Cherokees. Then they can all get hired by Harvard.