With the end of the Syrian conflict getting closer and closer, what will the future of the country and the balance of forces in the region be like? American analyst presents his vision and this is not at all favorable to the White House.
After spending a week in Syria, Doug Bandow, a former adviser to US President Ronald Reagan and a contributor to The National Interest magazine, came to the conclusion that his country’s policy toward Syria was “a disastrous failure.”
Nowadays, the author is a senior investigator at the Cato Institute, reflects on the significant support that Syrian President Bashar Assad enjoys, despite all charges against him, including allegedly heading “a dictatorship.”
“They saw the U.S.-inspired revolution in Iraq and didn’t like the ending. After all, even an American occupation didn’t prevent sectarian cleansing and slaughter, and many of the survivors fled to Syria,” the columnist writes.
In addition to the Syrian believers, the army is also something that contributes to the cohesion of society. In the author’s words, almost all the buildings in the country can be seen pictures of the fallen soldiers in the fight against the extremists, and this has become a sort of “common identity”.
For Bandow, it is impossible to pretend that Assad’s sympathizers do not exist.
“The United States is mistakenly fixated on Assad. Of course, he was no friend of America, but if he lost, someone else would win. Washington should have focused on the “compared to what” question. Was American involvement likely to lead to a better result? The Iraq debacle demonstrated how America could make the situation far worse,” he explained.
The author himself qualifies the Syrian regime as “dictatorship”, but highlights some important peculiarities.
“There are religious conservatives, of course, but the Assad’s, father and son, like Saddam Hussein, created a diverse and secular public square in which most Americans would feel comfortable,” Bandow shares.
In fact, he notes, the US’s desire to create a “truly liberal and democratic Syria” has been a worthy goal, but none of the armed factions in the country have been able to guarantee this.
While the Syrian Free Army served to legitimize the Syrian opposition on the global stage, in reality it was a weak and ineffective gamble, while its only alternative was the religious extremist groups, backed by the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
Assad’s government was the greatest force in the struggle against the jihadists, Bandow recalls, and US support for the Free Syrian Army only weakened government forces and prolonged the war without a chance of securing its coming into power .
In addition, the United States has criticized Iran and Russia for supporting the Syrian authorities, although it was Assad who formally requested their assistance, and it was the United States that disregarded international law and intervened in Syria without any pretext, they continued to occupy a large part of the sovereign country in the hope of getting the overthrow of the current government, sums up the author.