Editor's Note: Sami Moubayed is a university professor, historian, and editor-in-chief of Forward Magazine in Syria. This article appeared in Asia Times on August 22, 2011 entitled, Syria Looks Over its Shoulder.
By Sami Moubayed
The dramatic developments in Libya have raised eyebrows throughout the Arab world and within the international community. In the early hours of August 21, Libyan rebels finally entered the capital, Tripoli, with the aim of arresting – or killing – Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. Common sense dictates that Gaddafi's days are numbered; he will be gone, one way or another, within days.
Gadhafi has lasted five months of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) strikes. Had he not shot at his own people when young Libyans rebelled on February 17, then perhaps his fortunes would have played out better. He might have been allowed a dignified exit, for example, and offered an exile in Italy. He is now either going to be dragged in chains to the International Criminal Court or might commit suicide before angry Libyans get hold of him and tear him apart.
In typical fashion, Gaddafi spoke to what remains of his supporters on Sunday, accusing his enemies of being "traitors" who want to "give" Libya to the French. He shouted, "March forward! March forward! March forward! They have lost. Now is [their ending]." His bravado echoed those of Saddam Hussein on the eve of Iraq's 1991 war with the United States, when he said, "We and the Americans are at the tip of the pyramid - and we will see who falls off first!" History remembers only too well who fell first, with the dictator meeting his end in a hangman's noose.
Many would have expected Gaddafi's collapse to spark happiness in the angry Syrian street, where rebels have been trying to topple the Damascus regime since mid-March. On the contrary, many Syrians were clearly worried as news of the march into Tripoli reached Damascus.
True, they hate Gaddafi and long to see his end - but as of Sunday morning it was no longer Gadhafi that mattered to Libya-observers inside Syria. Rather, it was Syria itself. Having succeeded in Libya, NATO might now rethink its options on Syria, where pressure has been growing from the international community for President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
Internationalizing the Syrian crisis militarily has to date not been on many minds in Syria - until now. Few on the Syrian street and within the opposition have contemplated any kind of foreign intervention, claiming that political escalation and sanctions headed by the Barack Obama White House is one thing, an armed attack by NATO quite another.
For weeks, people have been saying: "No matter what happens, NATO will never strike Syria." That made sense as long as the mess in Libya dragged on - Western taxpayers were fed up with fighting a war that did not concern them and that was failing to achieve its end objective: getting rid of Colonel Gadhafi.
The London Financial Times recently reported on a Pentagon memo in June saying that the cost of U.S. involvement in the Libya war was a staggering US$2 million a day. Libya was supposed to pay for the war effort from its oil - once NATO operations ended by getting rid of Gaddafi.
Before last weekend, the Italians sent their aircraft back to Italy while Britain withdrew its spy plane. Canada was preparing to pull out, the Danes were complaining and Norwegians had dropped out entirely - mainly due to financial fatigue.
All of this became history on Sunday when Libyan rebels entered the capital and captured three of Gadhafi's sons, including Saif al-Islam, according to the rebel National Transitional Council.
Now world leaders might be thinking that the military campaign was not as bad as it seemed, and although Syria doesn't have the same wealth to pay off a war effort as is the case with Libya, an operation could be financed by some Gulf countries, for example, if its end results were 100% guaranteed.
Earlier this month, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin told the popular Russian newspaper Izvestia that the organization was planning a military campaign against Syria, similar to the Libyan one. This was "leaked" shortly after international pressure mounted on Damascus when the Saudi, Tunisian, Swiss, Bahraini and Kuwaiti ambassadors were withdrawn from the Syrian capital.
Then came a wild story in Debka, a Jerusalem-based "Israeli military intelligence" website, saying that NATO was planning to arm Syrian rebels ahead of an upcoming attack on Syria itself. According to the controversial report, large caches of weapons, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, mortar bombs, and heavy machine guns, will be sent to Syrian cities, all escorted by the Turkish army, for use against the Syrian government.
Both the Russian diplomat's words and those of Debka are hard to believe - for now. Depending on how events unfold in Libya over the next few days, the NATO option might become closer to reality than ever before - at least in the minds of some world leaders.
The fundamental difference between Syria and Libya, however, is that unlike Libya - where rebels called for foreign intervention from day one - many Syrians do not want a NATO attack as it is feared this would only strengthen the state and rally ordinary Syrians around the government.
Military intervention would create unbelievable damage to the economy, infrastructure and morale. Additionally, Syria is not Libyan wasteland; a country that is underdeveloped, plain and empty. To state the obvious, although very large in territory (the 17th largest in the world) Libya has only 6 million people divided mainly between Benghazi and Tripoli, whereas Syria is packed with 22 million people.
The slightest "mistake" as the many committed by NATO in Libya would be catastrophic for the people of Syria. In addition to being more ethnically and religiously diverse, its terrain is filled with historical monuments, some dating back 5,000 years, schools, crowded residential districts and large bazaars.
Its territory has not been under attack since 1945, when the French army bombarded its capital during the colonial era. Simply put, its people are not used to war, unlike the Libyans - and more importantly - they don't want it to happen.
The Syrians feel that they can solve their problems on their own, whether by democratizing the regime, keeping it as it is, or bringing it down completely.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of Sami Moubayed.
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
"although Syria doesn't have the same wealth to pay off a war effort as is the case with Libya, an operation could be financed by some Gulf countries".
Excellent idea, The West should carry on its moral policing spree in the Middle East, while the war machine is still well oiled ! Also it helps create jobs.
Come on j. von hettlingen, you should know better than that as there is absolutely nothing moral about what we're doing in the Middle East any more than there was back in the 1940's when the Germans were conquering the rest of Europe.
For all intents and purposes, the war machine of the West really needs to be disabled for the good of mankind as it is now being ran by intrinsically and unequivocally evil people!!
@John and onesmallvoice, I'm so disppointed that you haven't read between the lines! It's not my style to be too explicit!
Bashar al-Assad has good reason to fear for his life. After all, Hilary Clinton is already deverting millions of U.S. tax dollars to finance the opposition to the Assad regime through the C.I.A. Sooner or later, I'm afraid, NATO will get it's grimy hands on Syria too!!! We're on the move and how and that makes me sick to no end!!!
Sami Mobayed, a Syrian regime flank, made the claim in an article published by CNN website that Syria's "territory has not been under attack since 1945, when the French army bombarded its capital during the colonial era". Sami doesn't think that the Israeli attacks on Ain Elsaheb near Damascus in 2003, Deir Al Zore in 2007, American attack on Al Bou Kamal in 2008 and some security operations like the assassination of Assad's Advisor Mohammad Alsalman in Tartous and Hezbollah's chief hit man Imad Moughnieh in Damascus do actually qualify as " attacks on Syrian territory".
Sami, intentionally, confuses the question put forward by the Syrian people. It is not about whether they do or don't want foreign military intervention, rather about how to get rid of the brutal blood thirsty dictator.
The war in Syria is already happening, what do you call 3000 killed, 5000 disappearnaces (most likely killed) and over 20,000 arrested? the only difference is that the people did not start shooting back..yet. I think the Syrians would end up using arms whether they like it or not and Sami is very mistaken to think that they can accept the regime to stay as an option (that is un-imaginable). I disagree with you sami and i think a military intervention in Syria would be welcomed with arms wide open, and the Syrians themselves are much more open to the idea than they were 5 months ago.. the peaceful nature of the protests have bought them significant gains but also is stuck at the equilibrium point. I dont think a military campaign would look like the libyan case. In other words not as wide/intense simply because the regime in Syria is much more fragile and poorer than qadafe, it will not withstand such pressures. I think a smart military intervention would be a small Turkish invasion to create a buffer zone where Syrians could train and get armed, such a zone would encourage thousands of army troops/officers to defect and create the alternative army/government. In other words NATO airstrike sorties would be less than Libya only targeting purely military divisions (the 4th division, the most loyal units) and air defenses and such. The Syrian regime has many pragmatic people from within unlike libya, and i expect a lot of treason under credible pressures. Let us remember that the regime does not have the support of one single major city as it simply lacks the demographic majority support.
With all respect Walid, i think u r talking nonsense. A military intervention would be catastrophic for the Syrians, for the country's future democracy, and the country's integrity. Talking of war as if it is a game of chess. Syria is in no means similar to Libya (other than they speak and same language and many share the Islam as a religion). please consider the following:
1) Syria is a civil society, perhaps one of the most civil in the Arabic world. it's not tribal like Libya.
2) Syria is traditionally formed on a mosaic of religions and ethnicity, where an intervention would turn Syria into Iraq.
3) Syria is in many respect a secular country.
4) Syria does have the foundation of democracy that many Arabic nations don't, which it gain during the 1960s
5) The government has a very strong formation (unlike what you said) and a very loyal military (until now very few defection took place)
6) The President has a support of the majority of the Minorities especially the Alwites and the Christians
7) The Syrian people DO NOT want Military intervention especially by NATO. they have long suffered and witnessed western intervention in the region (when it comes to Israel, Iraq, Lebanon), NOTE: the Syrian PEOPLE (not the government) are the heart and soul of the Arab opposition of the state of Israel
8) Syrians are fully aware of the imperialistic intentions of the west
9) The Syrian Military isn't as weak as it seem: 400,000 troops (which is huge when it comes to the countries population) (THEY are after all our sons and i don't wish to see them targeted), impressive missile capabilities, that could cause trouble for Israel (imagine what Hezbollah did, and what Syria could do)
10) Syria has many of the properties of a police-state, which makes it lethal to its own people and even the west.
11) western intervention would encourage Religious extremist to appear.
12) Due to its secular nature, it is impossible to arm citizens of cities in Syria. (its like arming American citizens)
13) Syria has a population of 22 million, who live mainly in cities that are crowded.
14) IT'S MY HOME
...... The list go on and on...... Please do not wish worse Scenario and then call it the only solution. a war in Syria would be less like Libya and more like Iraq. But I'm positive the Syrian people are more mature. WAR is never a solution, I'm surprised that Humanity haven't figured it out yet (especially westerners, with all of their advanced education and social maturity). Something WONDERFUL is happening for the Arabic people, something that the world did not witness before, not even in the west. It is truly a new era for them. if you can not see this than you are blind. it is not only about getting rid of a Dictator. it is truly a social change, it sparked the adventurous nature of society which broke many walls. and it is peaceful mainly. And the west is intentional or unintentional (i don't know) destroying it.
....For what is worth!
Ayre bi habalak shou Hal mastool
assad will not falls in easy way because assad clan fight as a religius duty they will not care for the Sanctions . and iran support him with billions of dollars . he has 120000 of alawit soliders just under his brother maher . Except for the security forces which are alawite 95% . so he will not fall if there are no Military strikes . also the Military strikes will Encourage the other soliders to Defecting the army .
IF THE WORLD DONT STAND WITH THE PROTESTERS THEY WILL BE KILLED FOR THE FUTUER . AND IRAN WILL BE STRONGER AND AMERICANS Existence WILL BE AT RISK.AND THE SYRIAN REGIME WILL FEEL STRONGER SO ISRAEL WILL BE ON IRANIAN LIST AND IT IS NOT SECRET THAT IRAN About to MAKE NUCLEAR BOMB
There IS an important point about iran . If NATO decided to go in military strikes for the Syrian regime, IRAN will not get involve because IRAN can not expose there Nuclear reactors for the military stikes . specialy that IRAN in its way to make a nuclear bomb.