Columns, Opinion

BENNAIM: Tides are changing in Syria

The month of October brought a development that could potentially change your life in very real and negative ways. What had seemed like a hopeless civil war in Syria evolved into something much more sensitive and potentially explosive. It started as September ended, when Russia decided to carry out bombings in Syria. Although they claimed to be fighting the Islamic State, for the past month the Russian Air Force has also allegedly been bombing rebels supported by the United States.

For Russia, the intervention in Syria is a masterstroke of politics. They can quietly withdraw from whatever history will make of the Ukrainian civil war while they turn their focus to Syria. NATO has questioned Russia’s involvement with Syria recently, but fighting against ISIS might mean that the NATO powers can’t credibly condemn Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blatant support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. And as a fighter of terrorism, Putin could potentially shake loose the sanctions placed on Russia for its role in the Ukrainian civil war, although Russian officials said they don’t believe these lifts are likely. This involvement also means that Russia will hold influence in any future peace agreements. To tie this bundle up as beautifully as possible for Putin, propping up Assad will leave him with an oil-rich client in the Middle East.

The situation went from political masterstroke from Russia to something that you should be aware of because the United States has decided to become involved in this disaster waiting to happen. Up until now, U.S. President Barack Obama has been good at staying away from this obvious quagmire, but he recently decided to change his strategy. On Friday, the White House said fewer than 50 Special Operations soldiers would be deployed to Syria. While the number of soldiers isn’t anything impressive, the plain fact is that America now has boots on the ground in Syria.

To be fair, the White House did go through pains to express that the soldiers were instructed not to fight, but I’m not convinced. Officially, these soldiers will go to advise local militias — but a columnist at Russian news network RT claims the soldiers are being used as human shields for the Syrian rebels, the rationale being that the Russians would avoid hitting any American soldiers to avoid potential diplomatic disasters. If these claims are to be believed, then the United States is playing a very dangerous game.

The worst-case scenario of all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States is not something that would result from this escalation, but other things might go wrong. Russia has come into the Syrian region with vigor and has inevitably changed the balance of power in ways that still need to be seen. The United States could potentially get caught up in another war in the Middle East.

There are potential escalating scenarios for the United States, one being that those Special Ops forces could begin operating. It would actually be pretty easy — once people get used to American forces being in Syria, the government quietly allows them to carry out specific operations. From there, the number of Special Ops could increase slightly, and America could fall even deeper into the bog of the Syrian civil war.

Another scenario: an American soldier could die, causing everything to spin out of control. Think about how the nation reacted to the murder of civilians by ISIS. Many Americans thought the United States should’ve gotten involved militarily. There are many politicians who would be glad to send more American forces there, and they would begin to get louder and louder.

We can hope that neither scenario nor scenarios such as these occur. If President Obama handles this well, those 50 or so American soldiers will come home soon and the situation will become a forgotten episode. It would be wiser still to seek a peaceful resolution to the war. President Obama has to be careful now, and should be bold and seek to reassemble the pieces of Syria through diplomacy.

More Articles

3 Comments

  1. Dear Amid Bennaim,

    thatk you for writing this article.

    I am saddend however to see you are quoting only a single souce as basis for your conclusions. Writing for a university newspaper in itself should demand a high standard of fact finding than quoting a single source.

    Besides, RT is well known for being state funded buy the Russian government. It is also well known that RT is, unfortunately, no free and/or independend news agency.

    Best Regards
    Christian

  2. PS.: The pages http://www.themoscowtimes.com (independent) and radio free liberty -www.rferl.org – (semi independent) are two other Russian web news papers for future reference.

  3. Hi Christian,
    Thanks for your feedback. In response to your comment, the focus of my piece was the US and my conclusions apply to the US which is why I only have one source on Russia. I used RT to make the point that this new escalation only complicates things further not because I agree with the reporter from RT. Beyond that, RT is basically the voice of the Russian government so using opposition news (ie. Radio free liberty) will get me information that is similar to what I can get from Western media. That being said, I agree with you that if Russia was the focus of my piece or if it will be the focus of other pieces of mine I will make sure not to limit myself exclusively to RT.

    Thank you for reading and for the feedback
    Amid

    Ps. I guess it doesn’t show up but I used the NY TIMES as well as the LA Times for this article too.