The United Nations has estimated that the two years of civil war in Syria generated about 15,000 casualties among the military and security forces and 10,000 insurgent casualties. Civilian casualties numbered 45,000.
In light of what had happened previously in Egypt and Libya, where weak and divided governments came to power, a prediction for Syria would have come easy. Any objective observer could have foreseen that the opposition to Bashar al-Assad's autocratic regime in Syria would soon be hijacked by Islamic extremism, leading to uncontrolled violence. While the demonstrations in Syria in 2011 might have been peaceful and moderate in their initial stages, extremist forces linked to Al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood soon infiltrated the movement. They began to utilize it for their purposes. Lakdhar Brahimi, the Special Envoy to Syria for the UN and the Arab League, reports that the rebel forces comprise individuals of some 38 different nationalities, among them Muslims from the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
The Supreme Military Council set up by the opposition shows overwhelmingly Islamist tendencies, and the opposition-controlled areas of Syria are already subject to Sharia Law. Meanwhile, the United Nations and the UK are confident that it was the jihadist rebels, not government forces, who fired a chemical weapons grenade into Khan-al-Assal.
Against this backdrop, it appears absurd that the US and other Western governments are contemplating supplying arms and weaponry to the rebel forces. There is no way to discern pro-western opposition forces from Muslim extremists and channel armament accordingly. In their desperation over the chaos that evolved over the past two years, the US, France, the UK, and Turkey recognized the Syrian National Coalition as Syria's interim government, even though heavily dominated by members linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In commenting on the Libyan situation (see respective essays from March 2011 https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html and October 2011 https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/10/lessons-from-muammar-gadhafis-demise. html), I warned about politically and militarily supporting dubious insurgent radicals in Egypt and Libya. In analogy, the warnings correspondingly apply to the Syrian case as well.
I argued that transatlantic foreign policy, led and dominated by the United States, is politically short-sighted, unethical in principle, and ideologically driven. The sheer irrational belief in democracy as the panacea for all problems is devoid of deeper considerations of sound political philosophy. The West keeps waging an unjust and meaningless war in Afghanistan, continues to back insurgents in Egypt and Libya, and now lends support to Syria's unjust, violent campaign.
Instead of supporting established political leaders in Egypt, Libya, and now Syria, dubious insurgent forces, pretending democratic goals while pursuing radical objectives, receive political, diplomatic, and even military support. We are facing the results of these failed policies in the whole region: Loss of human life and the amount of human suffering far outweigh the practicality of the conflict; affected nations are worse off than before; radical Muslim forces gain influence; Al-Qaeda is on the rise; Iran feels emboldened; Western power diminishes.
Whether we can ever neutralize the past years' foreign policy failures is doubtful, yet remains to be seen. For now, it appears more likely that particularly the mishandling of the case of Syria will entail the most hurtful consequences as the country is a significant landmark where strategic interests of East and West collide.
