Is the Obama Administration Betraying the Syrian Democratic Revolution?
This article appeared in the Daily Caller.
By Barry Rubin
Let’s assume that
it’s the middle of the Cold War. In an Asian country there’s a revolt
against a dictator. The opposition wants international recognition so it
seeks U.S. help. And the American government turns over direct
management of this process to…Communist China! The resulting coalition
is largely dominated by Communists, China’s allies, far exceeding their
proportional role in the revolution. Some anti-Communist activists walk
out in protest but it makes no difference.
Wouldn’t you be
shocked that a U.S. government has done something so stupid, indeed,
disastrous for U.S. interests? Treason or gross incompetence? After all,
that means U.S. aid is going to be funneled into a largely
Communist-led movement and it becomes more likely that Communists would
run the country if the revolution wins.
Oh, and not a single mass media organ pointed out the above situation even though it was a matter of public record.
Well, that’s just what’s happened with Syria.
The names of
nineteen of twenty-nine members of the Syrian National Council has just
been announced and as I explained in this article
10 of the 19—a majority—are identifiably Islamist. At least 4 of them are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Moreover
two-thirds of the 15 Sunni Muslim Arabs are Islamists. Note that the
Sunni Muslim Arabs are only 60 percent of the population. Making the
reasonable assumption that no more than 20 percent of the Sunnis are
Islamists that means Islamists are overrepresented by 500 percent. You
can challenge that assumption but I believe that you’d end up with at
least a 400 percent overrepresentation.
Let's remember
that the U.S. goal should be to push down Islamist representation even
below a level that would be proportionate with its base of support
within the country. That is how effective diplomacy would work.
At most, only 4 of
the Sunni Muslim representatives—just one-quarter—are liberals or
leftists! And the non-Sunni Muslim Arabs are underrepresented by 300
percent.
Remember, this is
not some spontaneous choice made by the Syrian masses or even by
external opposition groups. This was stage-managed by the Turks on
behalf of the American government.
It should be well
known by this point that the current Turkish regime is an enemy of the
United States. That government not only rejected sanctions against Iran
last year but tried to sabotage them. It has consistently supported
Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and—until recently—the Syrian regime. And the
Turkish regime has also become so hostile to Israel that some observers
in Turkey think it is going to the verge of war with the Jewish state.
But that’s not
all. Wikileaks show that the U.S. Embassy in Turkey has repeatedly
warned about that regime’s radicalism, anti-Americanism, and Islamism.
Yet despite this, the Obama Administration continues to treat the
Turkish government has a valued ally. For example, the Obama
Administration chose Turkey of all the world’s countries on September 11
to be co-founder of an international counter-terrorist group described
as the main U.S. initiative in that field marking the tenth anniversary
of the terror attacks on New York and Washington DC!
Now the U.S.
government and its Turkish Islamist friends have produced a largely
Islamist council to represent the Syrian people, manage incoming aid,
and perhaps to be the future government.
There are two
issues here. First, why is the Obama Administration so in love with the
pro-Islamist, anti-American Turkish regime? Because despite State
Department warnings the White House refuses to comprehend what’s going
on here to a point that has gone far beyond stubborn blindness into the
realm of willful self-sabotage.
The “Turkish
model” that it is trying to spread is a design for disaster. It means
installing anti-American, anti-Western regimes that are allies of some
or all the following list: Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, and the Muslim
Brotherhood. They will move their domestic societies toward Islamism.
Their only virtue is that they aren’t al-Qaida. And in Afghanistan the
administration is even willing to work with the Taliban.
Second, why has
the administration just empowered a largely Islamist Syrian leadership
when Syria a country where Islamism is relatively weak in regional
terms? Why didn’t it insist on more Kurdish, Druze, Christian, and
Alawite representation? Why are there only two (one might argue there
are three or four) moderate Sunni Arab Muslims on the list?
Again, the
administration is oblivious to the fact that the great threat to the
Middle East today and to U.S. interests (perhaps globally) is
revolutionary Islamism. Until this situation changes, the world, the
Middle East, and the United States are going to be heading toward
increasingly dangerous trouble.
RubinReports: Is the Obama Administration Betraying the Syrian Democratic Revolution?
No comments:
Post a Comment