2013 / 4 / 25
To be an analyst for Middle East issues and affairs, one need to be highly educated and informed about all the complicated backgrounds, cultures, languages and all the other sides. Even though I grow up there and studied almost every kind of the Muslim and Non-Muslim cultures, I still find it as a challenge to dissect and explain, for the western readers specifically, about what’s going on there.
What gets my attention was an essay written by the Famous analyst Daniel Pipes, I was, and still; if I have time, one of his readers and admires. But I feel I had my own disagreements with him – as he represents a conservatism wing of Republicans – and, in general, I disagree with Republicans. I do believe that Mr. Pipes, in his theories, go through emotional impulses more than being subjective in his analysis, he dealing with Middle East from a traditional orientalist way, as Bernard Lewis would be a good example of this.
I would like here to summarize his essay –“The case for Assad” to give the reader an idea about what we discussing here. The main concern in his essay centered on the growing role of the Islamist Radicals in Syria, and how the power of President Bashar Al-Assad is fading. It seems that not just the Obama’s Administration has any clear plan or vision about how to deal with the Syrian Case; but even Mr. Pipes has no shaped plans but “only reactions”.
From the beginning he announces that the West should support Al-Assad against the Islamic Fanatic Opposition. Not because he is in favor of Al-Assad Regime, but to create an endless fighting between two foes of the West. Even he described himself as a “reluctant” for going this way, but for him it’s a necessity required by the complicated struggle there. He had added to that that it is precedent in American History that US supported two enemies in a struggle.
The first example he given to us is what FDR did when the Germans involved in an offensive on the Soviet Union through WWII, once the Germans were close to achieve victory over Russians, US supported Stalin and the USSR, but once it became clear that Germany going to lose; in the encirclement of Stalingrad, the Americans withhold the cooperation with Russia, that to not give the Russians a quick victory.
His second example is about Reagan’s Administration and how it dealt with the Iraqi-Iranian War 1980 – 1988. How the Americans kept a kind of balance “a double containment” between to Ideological Regimes hated the Western Democratic style of government. We agree with all of this, often, politicians find themselves making some bitter decisions; it’s contradicting the basics of morality. The big question here would be: Is this a good theory? Keeping Al-Assad in power and keep his opposition strong enough to fight! What kind of policy is this? And what background its deriving its content from?
I don’t think that the Way Daniel Pipes deal with the balance of power in Syria is “reasonable”, especially because the situation could become worsened, by continuous fight, the area could get worse environment for any positive change and a comfortable nest for the hatred culture. Pipes is very realistic when he deals with weaponry and geopolitical issues, but he seems an idealistic preacher when he talk about how Westerners “Should” take initiative in creating mechanisms to aid “innocents” people who victimized everyday by the fighters on each side.
Republicans always deal with America in 19th Century perspective; they oppose any attempt to deal with a World which is much interconnected and interrelated. Let’s just compare the Syrian case with the two examples Pipes used in his analogy. In both cases, Germans Vs. Russians, and Iraqis Vs. Iranians, we dealing with two clear foes, states or governments owning foundations and having borders. But in case for Syria and its internal fighting, we are dealing with an ambiguous picture.
Through two years, America was stunned about what occurring in Syria, national peaceful protests had become violent and vicious fighting within civilian districts, meanwhile America and the West was watching, Saudi Arabia and Qatar – whom considered officially “American allies” with its Arsenal of “Fatwas – Religious announcements” added more Firewood to the bloody conflict. Why we didn’t interfere in the Crisis before Al-Qaida involves there? We are not making America safer by relying on – traitor allies – the Saudis always find it easy to underestimate the American reaction toward their “Two faces policy”.
I know that Republicans are corrupted by the Saudi Oil’s money, that why it was a paradoxical to see US government considering Saudi Arabia officials as “Friends” just because “Bin Laden” had had announced Fatwa proclaiming the (infidelity) of the Saudi regime, while Saudis has an Embassy in Kabul when it was under Ben Laden and Taliban’s rule!! Things will get worse in the area, because simply America don’t know to do anything but reactions.
What we should recommend here? I afraid that is too late to make the situation better, because now the Islamists could achieve the shutdown of Syrian Regime and show themselves as “liberators” while we know what evil they going to implicate in the Region. America can only go rapidly to shutdown Al-Assad and then it would be easier to support some nationalists and Democrats to fight the intruders the Jihadists Terrorists, but because Saudis and Qatar had switched the struggle from a “Struggle for freedom” to a “Struggle of sections”, it is too hard to fix the condition”.