The US and the Syrian Issue

The US is present politically, economically, culturally, technically, and scientifically, in a way of another all over human societies' daily life. Be it we hate this fact or like. The magnitude of its presence indeed differs in terms of its intensity and 

softness in these societies; it is nevertheless one of the great empires in human history that has a say and an action in all the problems and issues of the world, the Syrian's is not an exception

An imperial state, America integrates all that goes into the making of power: It has the power of knowledge, science, technology, economics, politics, culture, military, and social anthropology. These forces at work enabled the US to deal with the countries of the world as its geopolitical borders. It is no wonder to say that throughout human history, America stands unique; its borders have never been attacked; and the wars it wages are all beyond its borders, since its independence. In view of that, for a country, be it large or small; it is off the wall to say that it enjoys complete national independence. This is because the US has a long history of defusing the sovereignty of several countries, putting it off for a short or long time. So much so that it has sent the sovereignty of four Arab countries flying for good. Not to mention that the US still has military bases in Japan, Europe, and in Australia; the removal of which any of these countries cannot even discuss! Furthermore, America's imperial way of thinking governs its behavior; it has reached the point to address a superpower country disparagingly, as it happened with China several times, and when Trump demanded Germany pay for the cost of its protection! Whoever may wish to learn more can go back to statistics which tell for sure that there are 

huge gaps that mark off and put supreme the military, economic, scientific, and research power of the US in comparison to that of the superpowers' altogether at one go!

Let us agree on the top streamline priorities that the US upholds in the Middle East since the end of WWII, first: Ensuring the free flow of energy resources from the region. Secondly: Ensuring the security of Israel. Third: Sustaining the US power over it. It follows hence that it would not be acceptable for any country or coalition to challenge these triple ensures. To which the US policymakers have recently added two other goals: Preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction and fighting against terrorism. America stood on the face of and will stand in the face of any foul play in the Arab region, especially the areas where energy is coming from, whether a monkey business may come from external forces or even spring up from Arab radical or conservative attempts calling for relative political independence from the US hegemony, (the story of Iraq). In that order, the US interests reflect its behavior; as it is neither with nor against Islam in itself, nor is it with or against dictatorships, nor is it with or against republic or monarchies rule. It eyes its own interests no more.

Syria in the eyes of the US politics

I will dwell on the events that shaped the relationship between the US and Syria during the Assad era, father and the son, in order to work out the exciting relationship; which for the consciousness of many Syrians appears ambiguous and contradictory.  Syria sits amid Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey. The US considers its position dangerously critical; hence the running of its affairs must be under control. That is why for nearly fifty years, the US deals with a regime whose action limits are well known, in addition to knowing its weakness points. Thus knowing in which direction it wishes it to act or behave.  The US very much knows that its only drive and concern is to remain in power, whatever the price it may cost and the task it may carry out. Thus, the US does not look at the regime as posing a threat, so long as it is functioning for the benefits of the US hegemony. Accordingly, the regime by dint of its being enslaved in its hunger for ruling put Syria on its menu; rather than betting on developing the country in exchange for its services. This regime itself the one which co-allied the US in its war on Iraq, handing it lists of fundamentalist movements. It is the same regime that frustrated the presence of the Palestine Liberation Organization, since its taking over the rule of Syria, while destroying the Lebanese national resistance that supported it. It is the regime, which bestowed strategic Syrian lands to Israel to guarantee its protection. The same regime that ruined Lebanon the exemplary (the Switzerland of the East) and turned it into ashes. The same regime, which is taking part in transforming Syria into cantons; a case in which the country's recovery will be an intricate feat to realize.

I tend to think that Obama was comfortable with the Asad's excessive suppression of the Syrians. The Asad, by deciding to unleash its military force against his people, his behavior was supposed to turn Syria into the Libyan scenario. A case in which a NATO-led UN-authorized military intervention would result, or a unilateral US military intervention, as happened several times in the past. This is especially evident when the Syrian demonstrations were first marked by liberal slogans against the US enemies; as if the demonstrators had realized that the US policy would not fail people seeking its help against the hegemony of two foes the Russian as well as the Iranian (!)Notwithstanding this, several reports revealed that Obama adopted the sitting on the fence dispirited policy towards Syria; making reminder of his phony attitude against the use of chemical weapons by the Assad militia, as well as the bogus red lines joke. The US policy hardly has a place for red lines on human rights issues, when it comes to the issues not affecting its national interest. Besides, the US gentle policy towards the repeated Russian-Chinese veto and its refusal to intervene militarily gave Assad a license to exterminate. Moreover, Obama manipulated the Syrian demonstrations; when he used words as weapons and a policy against Assad's crimes. Verily, if words were weapons, idiots, such as the Nasrallah and his likes, would have conquered the world, and Obama would have liberated Syria from its imprisonment well afore giving his second speech about!

 Obama opted for a US playing behind the scenes role in the Syrian conflict. Thus, he followed a clandestine operations policy that cost not much, and would not attract much attention and criticism. So he started up and maintained blocs balance as well as the balance of interventions in the country; rather than bring an end to any. He shifted the power of the uprising from the hands of peaceful activists over to men at arms who have little of the know-how and politics. It was an act of betrayal to the factions when it came to support them. However, he insisted on arming them with light weapons and ammunition, the interrupted supply of which cripples a continuing attack; and at the same time upholding a policy to provide support with weapons that never make a victory albeit making it possible for the conflict to become bloody all the more and unrelenting; to get rotten and fester! Furthermore, Obama took the wind out the political solution’s sail, which would have spared Syria from sliding into an armed proxy war. A war in which the US foes and friends alike were caught up on Syrian 

soil. Subsequently, the Syrians dreaming of a free life woke up to massive destruction all around! 

Obama's foreign policy administration also tried to hide Assad's crimes as much as it could from the US and international media. Perhaps the best example to stand witness is the pressure it exerted on the US Congress to prevent Caesar from exposing Assad's crimes; leaving Syria on the wheels of fire. "We are afraid that, the media would raise the question afterward, and ask what we will be doing about that". A US official said when asked about the reason behind that attiude. Well, simply, because they don't want to do anything!"  

 It is wide of the mark to say that the presence of the Russians and the Iranians constitute an obstacle to a US way out for the Syrian issue, or else that their presence lies beyond the US’ thumbs up. We are aware that the US will not agree and let Iran, neither now nor in the future, have the say in the fate of Syria, or for the Russians to be singled out for a political solution for Syria, just as both have basically no effective supremacy; which we have elaborated on in previous articles

.

The US realizes that Assad's "regime" is no longer maintainable and that the Russian occupation is in a vicious circle for which it has no way out. The US wants an alternative similar to the Assad regime's shabby authority in terms of function; surely not at odds one. That alternative is not available yet. Consequently, why should it help bring down a regime whose alternative it never knows? We still believe that the US can help establish a system that believes in partnership in exchange for the right of the Syrian people to lead a life that provides them with abundance to help them restore their country and have a safe life. The US much as it is leading the world it leveraging its advanced technology. The world in its time is brighter, more enlightened, and far developed. The cost should not be out of the American taxpayer's pocket only; we believe that we have to share a significant portion of our resources in this development. Just as the Syrian people are keen on having their relationship with the neighboring countries based on cooperation for the good of the region, and not on the principle of postponing hostility. The Syrians absolutely, do not want to take an anti-US standpoint. To ensure making that a reality, we should not have an army we cannot fulfill its obligations; we would rather have security forces that impose security within the borders of the country

For ever and ever, Syrians should understand that there is no solution to their problem beyond their own hands. The real obstacles lie in their employment of external elements to make their demands come true. It lies in the absence of an active Syrian political figure representing the Syrians. Added to that, the absence of a group of multi-facade elite frameworks capable of creating a social contract as well as a political one, ensuring the realization of a political engagement that holds no animosity against anyone. In light of this shortage, the action of the external forces, the US atop, will remain free from any checking internal power. Destruction will continue, and the scourge of the evil militias will stretch all the more over us, under the pronounced dead and rotten regime. The statehood form, the running people affairs', and their living will be out of our reach. We willhave to stay in a bitter prison walled off with scripts made of sand.