"Biting the Syrian Bullet"

Arms and Terror

The director of Caritas-Lebanon, the priest Paul Karam, has voiced strong criticism of the West's policy in regards to Syria. To put an end to the killings, he is demanding an immediate halt to all arms supplies to the warring parties in Syria. He explicitly points to Western countries, which, together with their Middle Eastern allies, are providing arms and other equipment and military training to the Syrian insurgents. At the end of June, US President Barack Obama asked Congress for US $500 million to "train and equip" the Syrian insurgents.[1] Caritas-Lebanon, which has been trying desperately to provide adequate support to the more than 1.6 million war refugees in Lebanon, is also demanding that the Western countries stop the influx into Syria of Salafist combatants particularly from Europe. Several thousand citizens of EU member countries have already joined the ranks of the "Islamic State" terrorist organization in its war in Syria and Iraq.[2] Karam declared that the fact that more and more Europeans are coming to participate in Salafist terrorism in Syria, bringing death to the country and causing civilians to flee, can no longer be tolerated.

Lessons from the War on Libya

Foreign policy expert Dmitri Trenin of Moscow's Carnegie Center, a subsidiary of the US Carnegie Endowment for International Peace think tank, shed light on what is behind western support for the insurgents in Syria. Trenin, first of all, points out that Moscow, learned the lesson of Libya, and refused to support the West's efforts to overthrow the Assad government. At the time of Libya, Russia had abstained in the UN Security Council vote, opening the door to western military aggression, only to then realize that the West had used Gadhafi's overthrow to impose its interests, while Russia's position was seriously weakened. Therefore, Moscow was unwilling to facilitate overthrowing also the Syrian government. According to Trenin, additionally President Putin had drawn the conclusion, that Assad was stronger than his opponents and that the strongest among his opponents were the jihadis, so the choice was essentially between the two. "That assessment proved to be more realistic than the calculus of Obama’s advisers in the White House."[3]

Return to Equal Partnership

Trenin also reminds that in May 2013, Moscow offered Washington a chance to jointly lead the process of political settlement in Syria. However, the West, turned the proposition down. In the summer of 2013, Moscow was able to negotiate the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. This was "arguably the first eye-to-eye discussions between U.S. and Russian representatives since the downfall of the Soviet Union." With the Geneva Peace Negotiations, Russia essentially won back "the diplomatic parity with the United States" that it had lost in the early 1990s. President Putin has been able to achieve all this despite the fact that "Russia’s resources were a fraction of America’s, and its influence in Syria -not to speak of anywhere else in the Middle East - was hardly dominant." Of course Washington was not happy to watch its Russian rival gaining influence. "Irritation" with Putin and with Russia "mounted in U.S. political circles," concludes Trenin.[4]

From Damascus to Kiev

Trenin points out that the scandal around Edward Snowden, which had also weakened Washington and strengthened Moscow, arose alongside Russia's empowerment in the Syrian War. The Ukraine crisis, that developed soon thereafter, "was thus not an isolated spat or a tragic misunderstanding," but rather the next round on the spiral of the Washington-Moscow power struggle.[5] A few months ago, this was also pointed out by US experts. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[6]) Nearly every means is being used in this power struggle.[7]

"The Best Option"

The West's continuous refusal to end their war against the Assad government - in spite of the persistent advance of the "Islamic State" terrorist organization is another aspect in this power struggle against Russia. Demands for the West to change course and join the Assad government in fighting the "Islamic State," have been raised for quite some time. Already back in December 2013, the former head of the CIA, Michael Hayden declared that he found an Assad victory to be the best option in the Syrian War; he said he could hardly imagine that the non-terrorist insurgents could win. "Someone has got to bite the bullet and say Assad stays," considers Joshua Landis, a renowned expert on Syria, at the University of Oklahoma.[8] Back in February 2014, Berlin demonstrated its opinion of this option. At the time, the "president" of the self-proclaimed Syrian "government" in exile, which Berlin had recognized as the "legitimate representative of the Syrian people," had had audiences with Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier and the chancellor's foreign policy advisor, Christoph Heusgen. Thereafter it was proclaimed that Assad must absolutely be removed from power. Berlin has yet to revise this position.

No-Fly Zone or Antiaircraft Missiles

The demand that the West, itself, should intervene militarily against the Assad government in Syria, is again being raised in the German capital. A "no-fly zone" should be established in Syria and the insurgents should be systematically furnished weapons, according to Petra Becker, an expert on Syria at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), in her commentary published in the "taz" journal close to the Greens. "One cannot get around" a "military engagement."[9] At the beginning of July, Becker wrote in the liberal, "Süddeutsche Zeitung" that "either a no-fly zone" should be imposed or the insurgents should be furnished "portable antiaircraft missiles." A "military engagement of the USA and others" is also necessary.[10] Whether she included the Bundeswehr in her calculations was left unclear. Syria is part of the greater North Africa -Middle East region. Because of the vacuum that will be left in that region by the US pivot toward the Pacific, strategists in Berlin and Washington seek to impose a stronger German-European hegemony - even militarily. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[11])

Other reports and background information on Germany's policy toward the Syrian War can be found here: War Threats against Syria, Iran's Achilles Heel, War Scenarios for Syria, War Scenarios for Syria (II), With the UN toward Escalation, Market Economy for Syria, The Yemenite Solution, Smuggle Supervisors, The Day After, The Day After (II), The Day After (IV), The Islamization of the Rebellion, Air Defense for the Exile Leadership, A Proxy War, In Rebel Territory (II), In Rebel Territory (III), The End of Artificial Borders, In Rebel Territory (IV), German War Assistance, Democratic Interventionism, The Rivals' Alliances, The Law of the Jungle, Germany's Chemical Weapons Expertise and Marching Toward Baghdad.

[1] Libanons Caritas fordert Stopp der Waffenlieferungen nach Syrien. www.kathpress.at 20.07.2014.
[2] See Marching Toward Baghdad.
[3], [4], [5] Dmitri Trenin: The Ukraine Crisis and the Resumption of Great-Power Rivalry. carnegie.ru 09.07.2014.
[6] See Die militärische Seite der Integration.
[7] See Wie im 19. Jahrhundert.
[8] Gudrun Harrer: "Die Kröte schlucken und sagen: Assad bleibt". derstandard.at 16.12.2013.
[9] Petra Becker: Den Syrern helfen. www.taz.de 19.06.2014.
[10] "Die Dschihadisten sind die Einzigen, die einen Sold zahlen können". www.sueddeutsche.de 02.07.2014.
[11] See Die Geopolitik der Energie and Die Weltpolitik-Kampagne der Eliten.