Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another


Washington should back the Free Syrian Army in its insurgency against Bashar al-Assad, since toppling his regime would strike a blow against Iran

Print Email
Members of the Free Syrian Army near the village of Ain al-Baida, not far from the Turkish border, on Dec. 15, 2011. (Sezayi Erken/AFP/Getty Images)

Should the United States act to protect Syrian civilians from their murderous regime? Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday that there won’t be international troops dispatched to Syria—at least not without the permission of Bashar al-Assad, the man who is killing Syrians in their homes. Don’t hold your breath.

But the more serious case the administration is making is that it doesn’t have to do anything because the regime in Damascus is already on its way out. As White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew said Sunday it is “only a matter of time before the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad collapses.” Perhaps. But in the meantime, many more innocent Syrians will be murdered in addition to the 7,000 that have been killed in the last 11 months. Should that terrible reality matter to U.S. policymakers? In short, and as callous as it sounds, not really.

The president’s chief responsibility is to protect the citizens and interests of the United States. Yet since the Clinton Administration intervened in the Bosnian war and Kosovo conflict to protect the Bosnians, and then the Kosovars, from the Serbs, the notion that it is the duty of the United States to protect foreign nationals from maniacal foreign regimes has captivated policymakers and analysts.

We saw the most recent iteration of this thinking when the Obama Administration backed NATO action to bring down Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. But it was under the George W. Bush Administration that responsibility to protect was institutionalized in the country’s political and military echelons. It was dubbed counterinsurgency, or COIN, and it is based on the proposition that in order to defeat insurgencies it is necessary to protect the locals who might otherwise lend insurgents their support.

The problem with this doctrine is not simply that it risks American lives for the sake of foreign nationals, including those who may in fact be hostile to the United States, but that it tends to obscure the strategic rationale underlying armed conflict. For example, because American officials were committed to the notion that Iraq’s various insurgencies were primarily domestic affairs that required coalition forces to win the trust of locals, they ignored the mounds of evidence of Iranian involvement in the conflict, including satellite images of camps across the border where the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps trained Iraqis in the use of the improvised explosive devices that killed and wounded thousands of American soldiers. In short, counterinsurgency doctrine prevented U.S. officials from understanding that the Iraq War was not simply about Iraqi insurgents, whether they were Sunni tribes, al-Qaida, or Shia militants. It was about Iran’s project to drive the United States from the Middle East.

Now, under the same logic that gave rise to COIN and subsequently drove the United States to bring down Qaddafi, some of President Obama’s supporters, including former State Department Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, are arguing that Washington has a responsibility to protect Syrian civilians from their bloody-minded ruler. But as we’ve learned from the Iraq War, and as we may soon see in Libya, this is the wrong way to frame the conflict.

The fundamental question the White House should be asking is: Does the United States have an interest in pushing out Assad?

The answer is yes. If Obama is serious about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, while also keeping the United States out of what might likely turn into a region-wide war, helping topple Assad is a no-brainer. Since the Syrian regime is Iran’s one Arab ally and maybe its sole strategic partner, losing Assad would strike a serious blow to the Islamic Republic.

However, helping topple Assad doesn’t mean that Washington should send U.S. troops. Nor does it have to, given that there are proxy forces on the ground requesting support.

The best-known of them is the Free Syrian Army, led by a defector from the Syrian military, Col. Riad al-Asaad (no relation to the Syrian president) who is now based in Turkey. For good reason, analysts have questioned whether the Free Syrian Army can be an effective fighting force against the superior firepower of the 600,000-man-strong Syrian Army. After all, the Free Syrian Army is nothing more than a collection of militias comprised almost exclusively of the country’s Sunni Arab majority. But if the Free Syrian Army is a sectarian militia, the same is true of the remnants of the Syrian Army.

Secretary Clinton says that a political solution is the most desirable outcome in Syria and that no one wants a civil war. The truth is that there has been a civil war under way there since the minority Alawite sect, of which Assad is a member, came to power in 1966. The Alawites, a heterodox Shia sect that comprises around 12 percent of the population, have been despised by the Sunnis for close to a thousand years as heretics. Thus, over the last half-century, this civil war has been waged at varying levels of intensity, including a military conflict that began in the late 1970s and culminated in the 1982 massacre at Hama, when Hafez al-Assad gave the orders to raze the town and kill tens of thousands.

Hama was 30 years ago this month. And now, almost a year into the current phase of Syria’s civil war and many thousands of Sunni corpses later, the Assad regime is able to count on only the Alawites, who form the most trustworthy units of the Syrian military and security apparatus, as well as the paramilitary gangs, called the shabbiha. The difference between the Syrian Army and the Free Syrian Army is that the former is much better equipped. The latter draws from a much larger segment of Syrians: More than 60 percent of the population is Sunni Arab.

This explains why the uprising shows no signs of abating. The Sunni Arab community is too large for the regime to manage when it is in open rebellion throughout the country. As we’ve seen over the last 11 months, when the regime brings quiet to one city, another erupts. In the town of Zabadani, for instance, Syrian troops were compelled to withdraw because the regime cannot absorb the military casualties that would be necessary to take a given city. Assad cannot put down the uprising because he simply doesn’t have the numbers to do so.

Still, despite what the White House says, it’s far from clear that Assad is finished. By training and arming the Free Syrian Army, either directly or through regional allies like Qatar, Washington can help consolidate the various militias under an organized command. Fighters will go where the money is.

The goal shouldn’t only be bringing down Assad, but also having leverage in Syria’s post-Assad future. The longer the conflict continues, the more regional—and even international—actors will be drawn in to protect or advance their own aims.

For instance, our onetime Cold War rivals in Moscow are doing all they can to prop up Assad, sending him arms and blocking the Obama Administration at the United Nations Security Council. Our current foes in the Persian Gulf have even more at stake. Tehran is reportedly sending reinforcements from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.

It’s time for the United States to invest in the outcome as well. And if it happens to dovetail with the humanitarian rationale, so much the better.

Print Email

Daily rate: $2
Monthly rate: $18
Yearly rate: $180

Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Tony Jona says:

The least we can do is to allow the support of the Free Syrian Army with money paid by Arab Oil States and logistics from Turkey or Jordan to defend civilians? What are we waiting for? Are we waiting for another massacre to happen similar to Rwanda? You know what! We deserve what Iran will be doing to us, by monopolizing the whole region, process WMD and making our life miserable by controlling oil supplies. Act now or you are doomed by Assaad regime, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Bulan Sabriel says:

Taking down the Ba’athist regime in Syria may hurt Iran, but it probably won’t help the US or Israel.

For all the cute liberal intelligentsia put up by Western foreigners as the spokesmen of the rebellion, the fact remains that the most organized contingent is the Muslim Brotherhood. If Syria falls to the Sunni majority, the leadership will go to the Muslim Brotherhood just as it has in Algeria, Libya and Egypt. It is no co-incidence that Al Qaeda has come out in support of the Syrian opposition. Are we to wage war for Al Qaeda in Syria as we did in Libya? I don’t like to throw the claim of “treason” around, but would this not be “aiding and abetting an enemy in time of war”?

Russia and China are backing both Iran and Syria. Russia has a port in Syria has ships off Syria in a show of force. Would these fire on NATO warplanes; probably not. But, there will be repercussions.
Depriving them of Syria will only make their ties with Iran closer, making any move to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon that much harder. And there are other downsides, including Assad’s threat to attack Israel if NATO attacks Syria.

So in exchange for helping the Muslim Brotherhood encircle Israel and helping Al Qaeda, Israel will be attacked and Russia and China may seek stronger ties to Iran. Clearly a win for Israel and the US.

jacob arnon says:

The US needs to support a genuine democratic opposition. Tne MB may be included but they shouldn’t play a leading role.


Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.


Washington should back the Free Syrian Army in its insurgency against Bashar al-Assad, since toppling his regime would strike a blow against Iran

More on Tablet:

The Kindergarten Teacher Who Won Cannes

By Vladislav Davidzon — Hungarian actor Géza Röhrig stars in Auschwitz drama Son of Saul