Who's in charge? How Assad & Syria control the greatest stake in the Middle East

The facts speak for themselves.  If you look at the numbers above, Syria is a global embarrassment into how a country should be allowed to operate.  The tyranny and brutal justice of Bashar Assad are on clear display for the world to see.  

16, 321 killed in 451 days.  (1,226 children, 1,150 women)

65,000 others missing.

212,000 detained.

1,000,000 internally displaced.

200,000 refugees.

1.4 million at risk of famine.

And what is Bashar Assad doing to fix this?  Nothing.  He is too concerned with hanging onto power that he simply does not have.  His ability to govern is nonexistent, and his will to govern has been diverted into handling an uprising that he can not handle without sheer force.

The real question now is how long must we allow this movement to go on without our President, Secretary of State, ambassadors in the region, even uttering a word to honor those who have lost their lives trying to bring a change that this administration welcomed gladly in places like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt even.  The pressure quickly mounted when the U.S. withdrew any support for longtime regional partner Hosni Mubarak, yet an Iranian puppet like Assad does not even gain mention in a White House press briefing.  

This President knows what is at stake if Assad falls.  It may not be pretty, but it is worth a chance to support this potential change.  Without Assad, a TRULY free Lebanon could emerge - dismembering the results of the 2008 civil war which installed a Hezbollah-led Parliament and President - and bring a legitimate government unifying all religions and sects.  A new Lebanon without Hezbollah (which is suffering internal dissent over finance mismanagement and its leadership) and a new Syria led by the people and not governed by an heir to the throne, will change the region.  Iran's largest proxies will have been diminished, no longer giving terror groups like Hezbollah the authority they once held (Hezbollah controlled many social services in the country, generating hundreds of millions in annual revenue for the group capitalizing on everything from garbage collecting to electricity, which sparked the 2008 civil way when the Lebanese government attempted to shut off the group's secure telecommunication network, which was declared an act of war by Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah). 

 All of this means that in order to sustain its ability to defend itself using its proxy network, Iran's estimated $200 million annually given to terror groups may have to increase...and its terror networks regroup.  Safe havens once held in Lebanon will now be free societies, capable of challenging Iranian meddling.  This is exactly what is needed to counter Hezbollah, which many terror experts have labeled for almost a decade as terrorism's "A-team", leading Al-Qaida in expertise.  

Why then have we allowed the people of Lebanon and Syria, approximately 25 million, to be denied an opportunity to create a new future for the youths?  Why must they have to wait another day?  How come we have outsourced any responsibility as a global leader to help resolve the problem to Russia, who has a longstanding partnership with Iran and Syria in military contracts that are probably being used in the daily bloodbaths on the streets of Homs?  Not to sound cynical, but Vladimir Putin knows probably better than anyone else how much money his country has to gain from arming Bashar Assad with Russian arms and military systems, why would he give the bat of an eye to the numbers inside Syria?  

This situation can not and will not be resolved inside the United Nations.  Rather it will be met, similar in World War II, by the dedication and partnership of freedom loving countries who challenge a power hungry menace and protect those who can not protect themselves.  The time to stop this madness is overdue, but it is clear that Assad has enough backing to hold onto whatever power he still yields, which is only through killing any dissenters.

Holding the key to Afghanistan

When the United States entered its War On Terror in 2001, it was to remove Al-Qaida from the havens offered to it by the Taliban. Nearly eight years later, Afghanistan now has become the focus again. After a meeting between Presidents Karzai and Zardari at the White House two weeks ago, followed by the lead U.S. commander in Afghanistan being removed by Defense Secretary Gates, it is clear that the White House is attempting to put a new face on a war that has its share of critics. From Karzai reinforcing the accusations of civilian targeting in U.S. air strikes as well as Zardari's persistent complaints of the lack of international involvement in his country, the war in Afghanistan is no longer a containable threat without regional cooperation.


At this time last year, NATO forces in Afghanistan were preparing for an expected massive Taliban offensive as the weather warmed up. At this time last year, Karzai was accusing the U.S. and NATO of targeting civilians in their air strikes and promoting talks with Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Pakistan launched military operations into towns that were believed to be Taliban strongholds.


Presently, NATO is expecting another Taliban offensive. Karzai is making the same statements and Pakistan is in the middle of more "offensives." By any standard, to declare progress in Afghanistan over the last year should raise an eyebrow so long as the situation one year later remains identical to the previous.


Last summer saw the Taliban and Al-Qaida operate from the havens in Pakistan to execute an array of sophisticatedly coordinated attacks on significant targets. There was the attempted assassination of Karzai in April, the June attack on a prison in Kandahar that freed nearly 1200 inmates, and the July bombing of the Indian embassy in the country. Several attacks also occurred in Pakistan, including the September attack on a Marriott in Islamabad.


Pakistan is expected to launch another offensive in Baluchistan, specifically targeting Baitullah Mehsud's fighters. Mehsud was yet again listed in another Anti-Terrorism Court warrant for the Lahore police academy bombing.


Pakistan is the answer to stabilizing Afghanistan. The Taliban are no longer contained to controlling a government, but have become a regional factor that seeks to undermine any opposition. Ahmed Rashid wrote of this when discussing how delicate the situation in Pakistan is, stating:

"The myths about the Taliban need to be clarified. They are not an extension of an external threat; they are not being funded by Russia or India. In the 1990s, the Taliban in Afghanistan were fighting the Northern Alliance, and thousands of Pashtuns went to fight as foot soldiers on behalf of the Taliban. In 2001, the Afghan Taliban fled to Pakistan. Pakistani Taliban, who previously had little clout, became hosts of the Afghan Taliban and earned much money for their assistance."

Rashid wrote that from 2001 to 2004, the Pakistani Taliban sought to establish a emirate in FATA and that the showdowns with the government now are their pursuit to expand that state.


However, the most threatening assessment comes from the statement that Pakistan's ISI sought to use Taliban fighters from Afghanistan to "maintain the jihadi nexus as a force against the Indians." Rashid writes about this in detail:

"The leadership of the Taliban is now in Pakistan, and they have stated their intention of overthrowing the government here. The Taliban are linking up with groups in Pakistan, and the Pakistani Taliban movement is turning into a multiethnic movement. Groups cultivated [by the Pakistani Army] to fight in Kashmir have joined up with the Pakistani Taliban, and include Punjabis, with organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Harkatul Mujahideen. Now, some 40 groups in Pakistan are loosely affiliated.... For that reason, Pakistan faces a more dangerous situation than Afghanistan, where Tajik and Uzbek fighters were not permitted to join the Afghan Taliban movement."

The above passage sheds just a small light into how complicated the connections in Pakistan lie. As the government begs for more aid money, it is likely that more and more refugee camps will be filled in areas already effected by failed military offensives in their areas. The already economically dismal situation in the country will only increase as a result of more operations, and Zardari will continue to plead for more aid relief from the international community. However, such operations have yet to prove beneficial in the long run and have yielded virtually no consistent results.


So long as groups are functioning inside Pakistan's borders, it remains almost certain that should the government continue to conduct offensives, the jihadists in Pakistan will seek to divert any concentration on themselves to Pakistan's signature enemy. It is highly likely that Indian targets will again fall victim to an attack, with the intent to exacerbate Pak-Indian relations. The question will then turn to just how capable Pakistan is of securing its own borders and whether India attempts to hold the government accountable for any terrorist action hatched inside that country. With India certain of Pakistan's involvement in the embassy bombing and the Mumbai attacks, time is running out.

The 2008 Arab-Israeli conflict

As I posted previously, the potential for the Israeli-Hamas battle to become much bigger is the greatest threat to international relations at this time. This is not just a battle between Palestinians and Israelis, but much bigger. This is an opportunity for Iran to secure its nuclear program and divert attention away from its unregulated nuclear program. However, the nuclear program is not the main concern now but rather the terror links that made this war possible.


The number one concern should be in the coming weeks, when Hamas could make good on its promises to disregard Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen. The already intense Fatah-Hamas divide could turn into bloodshed, with Palestinian factions warring against each other in the middle of a conflict with Israel. The question then turns to who the international community can talk with, Hamas' president or Abu Mazen? If this conflict is a direct result of Hamas, it would make sense to deal with Hamas, but it is important that the terror group is not given legitimacy through any talks.


This threat cripples the ability to resolve the situation. There will only be a loser, and it will be the Palestinian people. What could develop will be a civil war between Palestinian factions while at the same time engaging Israel. If the Fatah-Hamas conflict flares up, the potential for innocent bloodshed will increase drastically and the international community will be faced with the cries to intervene. Countries will be forced to take sides in a battle between terrorist groups masked as political forces, and the outcome will not be a resolution but rather another ceasefire.


As the world watches the crisis unfold in the Middle East, the potential for the worst to come true seems to be everpresent. I hope the Palestinian Authority can hold its power, but that answer could emerge in nearly a week. This crisis is plagued by the many changes occurring on the world stage, most notably President-elect Obama set to swear-in on January 20. Only time will tell where the situation will turn next, but looking at the trend of recent similar situations, this one will get alot worse.