EDITORIAL - Mr Obama should be careful in Syria

Barack Obama, the American president, is a history buff who likes to bone up on the policies and strategies of his predecessors.

As he moves to concretise his decision to provide arms to Syrian rebels, Mr Obama should probably reflect on a country called Afghanistan, where he is now attempting to end a war involving the United States.

He should consider how the Afghan mess was created, beyond the proximate issue of Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorists, who the Americans went to dislodge after their 9/11 attacks on the United States (US).

It started a little over two decades before September 2001, during the Cold War. Leonid Brezhnev, the leader of the then Soviet Union, sent troops to Afghanistan to shore up a military regime that had overthrown the centrist government of Mohammad Daud.

Over much of the next nine years, starting under the Carter and Reagan administrations, until the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, pulled his troops out of Afghanistan, the Americans armed Afghanistan's mujahideen. The Soviets left in defeat.

Afghanistan spawned a global terrorist, bin Laden, who was eventually killed by special forces dispatched by Mr Obama. But much of what bin Laden stood for remains in the radical Islamists and assorted terrorists whose ideology includes the gratuitous use of violence against those with whom they disagree. Western values remain a target.

Remnants of al-Qaeda, their successors and myriad other terrorists are numbered in the fight to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in what is increasingly shaping into a sectarian civil war.

The great likelihood is that the weapons provided by the US and the West will fall into the hands of extremists. Today, these weapons may be small arms. But we understand mission creep.

Like with Afghanistan's mujahideen against the Soviets, small arms could soon morph into more sophisticated weaponry. Rocket-propelled grenades were particularly effective against the Soviets, as their advanced versions would be against Mr Assad's military. So, too, would they be against targets whose interests are not allied to those of the terrorists.

What's the endgame?

Mr Obama should also be clear about the post-Assad Syria he expects.

Iraq is hardly the stable democracy predicted by George W. Bush in the aftermath of his invasion on the basis of spurious intelligence. Indeed, Iraq seems headed for another civil war, this time without America to keep the factions apart.

The situation in Syria is infinitely more dangerous. Neighbouring Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah, already involved in the conflict on the side of President Assad, will likely be drawn deeper in. So, too, might be Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other conservative Arab governments that oppose Assad. Then there is Israel, whose control of the occupied Golan Heights may well be forcefully challenged should a radical regime emerge from the conflict.

Further, Mr Obama's decision to arm the rebels will do little to advance the prospect of peace talks agreed to between the US and another important Syria supporter, Russia.

Mr Obama's reason for his intervention is evidence that Assad used chemical weapons against his opponents - crossing the so-called red line. Many people will hear echoes of Mr Bush's claim of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and see parallels with the Iraqi minefields Mr Bush was forced to traverse.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.