By Arlene Kushner
In my last posting, I alluded to President Obama’s announcement that he would be recognizing the Syrian Opposition Coalition, because it was “now inclusive enough, is reflective and representative enough of the Syrian population, that we consider them the legitimate representative of the Syrian people in opposition to the Assad regime.”
At that point I commented that: the coalition Obama will recognize may be “inclusive,” but that means it includes radical rebel forces, who will do all in their power to fight their way into positions of control.
But now I have to offer a correction, for my assessment, while on the right track, was a bit of an understatement. Radical forces are not simply “included” in the coalition. And they will not have to “fight their way to control.”
The leader of the Coalition is Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, and a close associate of the Damascus branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Coalition, formed in Qatar, is the civilian arm of the rebel movement of Syria. Associated with it is a new military council. According to a Reuters report, “the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies account for about two thirds of the 263 men who met in Antalya [Turkey] and formed the new body.”
~~~~~~~~~~
The above information is from Jonathan Spyer — senior research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center.
We might wonder precisely what is going on — although we should not be enormously surprised given Obama’s promotion of the Brotherhood in Egypt. Explains Spyer (emphasis added):
“All of these moves indicate that a coherent US and western policy toward the rebel side in the Syrian civil war is now emerging. This policy is in line with the Obama Administration’s broader regional orientation, and meets with the approval of key EU governments. It is also the preferred direction of Turkey and Qatar, the two countries who led the international response to the Syrian rebellion during the long period that the west preferred not to get directly involved.
“The intention is to align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.”
“…So the emergence of the Syrian National Coalition and the associated Joint Military Council means that the West and its regional Sunni allies are now backing a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated coalition as the preferred replacement for the Assad regime.
“The al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra organization, now designated a terror organization by the US, is a powerful jihadi force on the ground.
“The Western desire to declare this group off limits is entirely understandable. But the attempt to build it up as a kind of bogeyman to be contrasted with so-call ‘moderate’ Islamist groups has little basis in reality. The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.
“Exemplifying this, the US designation has led to a furious response across the board among the Syrian rebels. Twenty-nine rebel groups have now issued a statement saying ‘we are all Jabhat al-Nusra.’
“The focus on Jabhat al-Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home-grown Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-Western and no less anti-Jewish.
“…The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assed regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism…all holding fast to fundamentally anti-Western ideologies.
“Given the level of life that has been lost in Syria, and the presence of chemical and biological warfare programs now in the vicinity of Islamist terror groups, it does not seem hyperbolic to recall a stanza from Percy Shelley’s famous poem, ‘The Revolt of Islam: Their complicating lines did steep the orient sun in shadow…and all around, darkness more dread than night was poured upon the ground..'”
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Friday’s JPost, a senior military source has said that Syrian rebels have achieved “relative control” over the border with Israel.
“This doesn’t change our plans. We’ve been ready for this development for a long time,” the source said.
Elaborated the Post:
“The IDF is closely monitoring events across Syria…
“The risk of Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups coming into possession of strategic weapons in Syria appears to be equal to that of Hezbollah attempting to seize them.
“Military intelligence is concerned not just by chemical weapons, but by the risk of long-range missiles and other powerful weapons passing into rebels hands…
IDF Northern Command policy is to permit no spill over into the Golan Heights from the fighting in Syria.
~~~~~~~~~~
Hevron has been a hot spot for a while now, with a growing number of violent Arab incidents. Now a group that is calling itself the “National Union Battalions” — which it claims is to be jointly headed by members of Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front or the Liberation of Palestine — has released a video that declares: “This is the beginning of a third Palestinian intifada, which is erupting from the heart of Hevron and will spread to all of Palestine.”
Their talk is tough, their demands many. As they say they want to “recover Palestine from the river to the sea,” their demand that Israel withdraw from all “Palestinian lands” sounds like a demand that we be gone completely. I have no idea who this group actually represents, or how great their influence is or is likely to become. But this does seem a bit of handwriting on the wall in terms of what we have to contend with.
Please release my foregoing comment from moderation.
Spyer misunderstands Obama’s/the West’s thinking for backing the Syrian National Coalition and associated Joint Military Council, fighting to replace Syria’s leader Assad, when he says:
Obama has been accused by some pundits of being pro-Muslim Brotherhood, if not a member at heart of that organization. There is little evidence of that, however the evidence based on his life story, words and deeds since becoming President leads to concluding he is a philo Muslim.
The reasons for Obama/the West appearing to be backing the MB in Egypt and now in Syria has more to the following factors:
1. The arrogance of Western self image and underlying belief in Western superiority
That arrogance that blinds it to the reality that the West’s fundamental unshakeable faith its norms, values, perceptions and thought processes that derive therefrom are not shared by those Muslims in what we Westerners call the radical Islamic movement overtaking much of the Muslim world and in particular, most of the Middle East.
Westerners firmly believe that talk, not war is the means to settle differences. That fundamental belief certainly works well when those differences are between Western democratic nations. That is far from the case when the conflict is between the West West and most Muslim nations spanning from the West coast of Africa to Pakistan and Bangladesh.
That arrogant self image and fundamental unshakeable faith and belief in the superiority of Western ways are never more on display than when it comes to Obama. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, Obama believes he can talk America’s enemies into believing in him because he, better than America’s enemies know what their true best interests really are and how his enemies’ best interests can be best achieved within the Western model for settling differences, that eschews violence and war.
2. The West seeks to coalesce in the face of a common enemy, but to that end, given disparate perceptions or realities of self interest, the West coalesces around positions reflective of the lowest common denominators.
Consider for instance, Obama’s efforts to build a Western and UN coalition to impose sanctions against Iran to halt Iran’s rush to nuclear WMD capcity. With a number of key EU nations dependent on Iranian oil and concerned on a number of other counts should their relations with Iran suffer even more, as well as their relations with the Iranian backers, Russia and China being negatively impacted, the strongest sanctions the West and the UN could muster against Iran have had the appearance of weak tea.
Those sanctions, while hurting the Iranian economy have not even slowed, let alone stopped Iran from pushing forward with her nuclear WMD agenda.
3. Western Pragmatism
We have seen Obama’s kind of pragmatism at work in how Obama sought to deal with Iran, Libya, Egypt and now Syria with the West following suit.
Essentially that pragmatism is found in the Western way of trying to resolve differences by talk and knowing that enemies are hard enough to talk to and negotiate with, without pissing on them.
Recall the Iranian elections of 3 years ago. With clear evidence of fraud and the regime’s brutal put down of protesters and trampling their human rights, Obama for about 10 days or so held his tongue. When it was apparent that the Iranian mullocracy had held power, only then then he make a weak statement denouncing the fraud and Iran’s brutality while extending a hand to discuss differences and reach a peaceful settlement.
During the Libyan civil war, Obama and the West made some noises against Qadaffi. Unlike Iran, Egypt, and Syria, Libya was seen by Obama and the West as being militarily weak and that Qadaffi was not viewed with favor by the strong Arab nations. They wanted to be rid of him. First looking for and getting a green light from the Saudis and other key Arab players, Obama led the West, the UN and NATO to dream up the so called humanitarian policy, R2P and to act on it to aid the rebels in unseating Qadaffi.
Obama and the West knew by that time that with or without NATO’s help, Qadaffi’s days were numbered and the rebels would ultimately prevail. Obama and the West also by then, knew that there were many al Qaeda factions within the rebel forces which, if they did not then control the rebels, they soon would.
Finally, Obama, the West and NATO figured that because they assumed Qadaffi was militarily weak, they could make a show of being such humanitarians in exercising their R2P policy at little cost to themselves.
So where is that R2P policy when it comes to Egypt and Syria? Forgotten.
Regarding Egypt, again Obama and the West held back until it was apparent that Mubarek would fall to the forces arrayed against him and then and only then did Obama and the West call for Mubarek to step aside. Obama and the West also knew that the MB, the largest anti-Mubarek faction because it was organized, would win. The only caveat was that even more radical Islamists, also benefitting from organization might pull out a win or their would be a coaltion between the MB and more radical Islamists that came to rule Egypt.
Obama and the West therefore chose to back a dark horse rather than an even darker horse.
Now we have Syria. With the death toll mounting into the 10’s of thousands of Syrian lives R2P was nowhere to be found. Obama and the West made tough speeches deploring the loss of lives.
Even knowing that the rebel forces had been inflitrated by al Qaeda and al Qaeda affiliated radical terrorist organizations, when it appeared that these rebels would ultimately win, Obama and the West called on Assad to step aside.
To conclude, it is not the intention of Obama and the West is to align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements that explains where Obama and the West are coming from.
Rather, it is the hope that by not pissing on the the MB and al Qaeda associated elements, whose gaining power was foreseen, the West might be better able to achieve some kind of rapproachment with them and avoid war, the option always boldly stated to be on the table, but isn’t, unless it can be exercised at little if any cost in blood and treasure.