(David Rohde is a Reuters columnist but his opinions are his
own.)
By David Rohde
NEW YORK, Feb 21 (Reuters) – Typhoid and hepatitis outbreaks
are spreading. At least 70,000 people are dead, and there are
850,000 refugees. After covering the battle for Damascus for a
month, my colleague – photographer Goran Tomasevic – declared
the situation a “bloody stalemate” this week.
“I watched both sides mount assaults, some trying to gain
just a house or two, others for bigger prizes, only to be forced
back by sharpshooters, mortars or sprays of machine-gun fire,”
Tomasevic, a gifted and brave photographer, wrote in a chilling
first-hand account. “As in the ruins of Beirut, Sarajevo or
Stalingrad, it is a sniper’s war.”
The Obama administration’s policy toward Syria is a failure.
Bashar al-Assad is hanging onto power. Iran, Hezbollah and
Russia are funneling him more aid, armaments and diplomatic
cover than ever. And Syrian rebels who once hailed the United
States now loathe it.
In an incisive essay published this week in the London
Review of Books, Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, a journalist with the
Guardian, described the continued atomization of the Syrian
opposition. Abdul-Ahad, an Iraqi who covered the dissolution of
his own nation, freely admits that “we in the Middle East have
always had a strong appetite for factionalism.” But then he
delivers a damning description of how prevarication in
Washington creates deepening anti-Americanism among the rebels.
“Why are the Americans doing this to us?” one rebel
commander demands. “They told us they wouldn’t send us weapons
until we united. So we united in Doha. Now what’s their excuse?”
In the meantime, hard-line jihadists and their funders in
the Persian Gulf are filling the void.
“Maybe we should all become jihadis,” the exasperated
commander declares. “Maybe then we’ll get money and support.”
The time has come for the Obama administration to mount a
new policy in Syria. But don’t expect one anytime soon.
In an interview on Thursday, a senior administration
official played down a report in the The New York Times Monday
that President Barack Obama might reconsider arming Syria’s
rebels. The official confirmed that Obama rejected a proposal
last year from four of his top national security advisers that
the U.S. arm the rebels.
But he said a subsequent review by American intelligence
officials had concluded that only a large infusion of
sophisticated weaponry would tip the military balance in favor
of the rebels.
“We have to assess what it would take to change the
calculus,” the official said, “and hasten the transition.”
Repeating prior arguments, the official said the
administration opposed supplying the rebels with anti-aircraft
missiles out of concern that the weapon could fall into the
hands of jihadists.
“God forbid a U.S. weapon be used to strike an Israeli
passenger plane or land in Israel,” he said.
The problem, though, is that jihadists are growing
increasingly well-armed and powerful inside Syria. The London
Review of Books essay, “How to Start a Battalion in Five Easy
Lessons,” begins with a description of a rebel commander
withdrawing his fighters from an important rebel defensive
position in Allepo because a donor in the Gulf is willing to
provide him with more money and weapons.
“He says he will pay for our ammunition and we get to keep
all the spoils of the fighting,” the rebel commander says. “We
just have to supply him with videos.”
And a recent New Yorker piece described stepped-up
assistance from Hezbollah.
“If Bashar goes down,” one Hezbollah commander told the
magazine, “we’re next.”
And the White House official confirmed that Iranian
assistance to the Assad regime is rising.
“The extent of Iranian support is stunning,” the official
said. “They are all in. They are doing everything they can to
support the Assad regime and putting in enormous amounts of arms
and individuals.”
Why, then, isn’t the United States even partly in? In the
London Review piece, rebels complained that the United States
was blocking countries in the region from providing
anti-aircraft missiles as well. The White House officials denied
that was true and argued that surface-to-air missiles were
finding their way into Syria.
But he said the administration was trying to learn lessons
from the past, particularly Iraq.
“The United States has a long history of picking winners and
losers based on the guy who speak English well,” the official
said. “It’s just trying to learn the lesson and be humble.”
Learning is important, but we should do better than this.
Our fear of radical Islamists is paralyzing our efforts. And we
are missing a strategic opportunity to weaken Iran and
Hezbollah.
We must take risks. If we do not wish to arm groups
ourselves, we should at least allow countries in the region to
do so. Sophisticated anti-tank missiles and other conventional
weapons, not surface-to-air missiles, could help turn the tide.
We must trust Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to sort out a
confusing situation on the ground. And if we are serious about a
diplomatic effort, we must redouble our efforts instead of
deferring yet again to false Russian promises.
And lastly, the current approach is clearly a failure. The
death count today in Syria is rapidly approaching the levels of
the wars in Iraq and Bosnia. While it may not have a political
cost in Washington, the White House is sending a clear message
across the Middle East: American and Israeli lives matter, not
Syrian ones. The figure is 70,000 and counting. That number will
come back to haunt us.
(David Rohde is a columnist for Reuters, two-time winner of
the Pulitzer Prize, and a former reporter for The New York
Times. His forthcoming book, “Beyond War: Reimagining American
Influence in a New Middle East” will be published in April
2013.)
(David Rohde)
