Syria: Foreign Interference Between Myth and Reality

Maher Arar

(Originally published by Prism Magazine, republished under a Creative Commons license)

Deciding whether or not to oppose Syria’s rulers has been the recent dominant preoccupation of many anti-imperialist and left-leaning movements. This hesitant attitude towards the Syrian struggle for freedom is nurtured by many anti-regime actions that were recently taken by many Western and Middle-Eastern countries, whose main interest lies in isolating Syria from Iran. However, I believe a better question to ask with respect to Syria is whether the leftist movement should support, or not support, the struggle of the Syrian people.

What I find lacking in many of the analyses relating to the Syrian crisis, which I find oftentimes biased and politically motivated, is how well the interests of the Syrian people who are living inside are taken into account. Dry and unnecessarily sophisticated in nature, these analyses ignore simple facts about why the Syrian people rebelled against the regime in the first place. [More after the jump]

A brief historical context is probably the best way to bring about some insight with respect to the events that are unfolding in front of our eyes today. Before doing so, it is important to highlight that, unlike many other Arab countries, Syria is not a religiously homogenous Middle-Eastern country. I am mentioning this because it is through religion that the majority of Arabs identified themselves for centuries. As it stands today, Syria’s population is composed 74 per cent of Sunnis (including Kurds and others), 12 per cent Alawites (including Arab Shia), 10 per cent Christians (including Armenians) and 3 per cent Druze.

Syria earned its independence from the French rule in 1946. As has always been the case with any occupying and imperial force, France worked diligently to ensure that Syrian minorities were placed in top government and military positions. The Alawites’ share of the pie was the military. By the time France left Syria, Alawites became well entrenched in this crucial government institution.

After two decades of military coups and counter-coups, it was no surprise that Hafez al-Assad, an Alawite and minister of defence at the time, seized power in a bloodless coup in 1970. Within a few years he was relatively able to bring about economic and social stability ”“ which made him a hero in the eyes of the majority of Syrians, regardless of their religion or ethnicity.

Bolstering power

A cunning politician and an experienced military officer, Assad knew that unless he solidified his rule, the time would soon come when other military officers would mount a coup against him. Over the span of few years, he made sure the top brass of the military and intelligence was filled with fellow Alawite officers who, thanks to France’s pro-minorities policy, were available in abundance.

These Alawite officers were also less likely to mount a coup against a fellow countryman. To deprive the mukhabarat [“intelligence service”] of the opportunity to be able to mount a serious coup against him, Assad created 13 different intelligence agencies ”“ completely independent of each other. Assad also made sure that the most powerful agency was the Air Force Intelligence which he could trust blindly as he himself, a pilot, was a graduate of that particular school (that explains why this particular branch is the most ruthless and the most loyal to the regime).

Over the years the Mukhabarat earned a well-deserved reputation of notoriety within the circles of Syria’s civil life, mainly because on their payroll were hundreds of thousands of informants who regularly filled reports with respect to the slightest activity that in their judgment was deemed a threat to the security of the state. People were arrested and tortured for offenses as simple as seeing and relating a dream in which Syria was portrayed as a kingdom instead of a republic (I heard direct testimony regarding this ”˜crime’ from many fellow detainees.) If anything, this almost-surreal example shows that the Syrian regime has never tolerated, and would never tolerate, any form of peaceful dissent.

When I was detained at the Sednaya prison in 2003, a 60-year-old man told me of a conversation that took place between him and a general in the Political Security Directorate. The old man was trying to have a rational dialogue with the general during the interrogation, by advising the him that the regime must treat people like human beings if it wanted to rightly earn the respect of the Syrian people.

The general responded: ”œWe want to rule people by our shoes.” This is a famous Syrian expression akin to: ”œWe want to rule people with an iron fist, humiliating them.” This example sheds some light on the type of mentality that dominates the inner circles of the Assad regime even today. Understanding this point in particular is crucial to understanding the violent response that the regime showed towards the protesters since day one.

Another important factor that explains why the regime reacted violently to peaceful dissent is that pillars of the regime had never imagined that the ”˜subjects’ they used to humiliate would one day challenge their authority. Assad’s deniability with respect to this matter was apparent during the interview he afforded to the Wall Street Journal only six weeks before the uprising in Daraa erupted.

Crushing dissent

Those who still buy Assad’s anti-imperial rhetoric should know that the old man whose story is mentioned above was imprisoned simply because he and other fellow citizens organised a small rally to denounce the illegal US invasion of Iraq.

In fact, it is not uncommon to find prisoners ”“ including some of those I met in Sednaya prison ”“ whose only ”œcrime” was to help Palestinian groups. Also, how could a regime that claims to be anti-Israel not even dare to protect itself against the frequent Israeli air incursions throughout the past decade?

I remember vividly the day I was released, when Israeli warplanes bombarded a site inside Syria under the pretext that it was being used to train Palestinian fighters. Syria’s response on that day was mute ”“ as had always been the case. Finally, it is no secret that Syria, like many other Arab countries, cooperated closely with the US in the so-called ”œwar on terror”. I am only one of few living examples of this covert cooperation.

I hope this brief historical context and the few stories mentioned above contain enough information which can now help us analyse the current situation. Contrary to the conspiracy theory type of analysis, which accuses the US and its allies of starting the unrest in Syria, it is now an established fact that spontaneous and peaceful demonstrations erupted after the government refused to hold to account those who tortured those teenagers who sprayed anti-regime graffiti on school walls.

In fact, the initial demands of the protesters were very simple, and did not contain a single slogan which demanded the downfall of the regime. To add insult to injury, when the families of the teens inquired about the fate of their loved ones they were told that they ”œshould forget about them.” When the families persisted in their demands they were humiliated and were told to ”œgo make other children and if you don’t know how to do it bring us your women and we will show how to do it.” How more humiliating could this be?

As peaceful demonstrations widened, and spread from one city to the next, Assad’s security forces naively thought that by using lethal force to crush these growing protests, the barrier of fear that was starting to collapse would be immediately restored. Contrary to their wishes, however, the more lethal the force they used, the more Syrians became determined to overthrow the regime ”“ by then most had lost hope that their simple demands were going to be met.

When it became clear that there was no genuine commitment that security forces and affiliated Shabiha gangs were going to refrain from using force to crush the demonstrations, people felt the need to defend themselves against the excessive aggression and atrocities committed by state agents ”“ some of whom had reportedly gone totally rogue.

Emergence of the opposition

It is amid this atmosphere that political and armed opposition groups started to galvanise, resulting in the emergence of opposition coalitions ”“ the largest of which was the Syrian National Council (SNC), mainly comprised of Syrians living abroad. The composition of the SNC came back to haunt it later, as dissidents living inside Syria accused the SNC of being detached from the true demands of the people on the ground.

For instance, the main point of contention between a newly spun group led by longtime dissident Haitham al-Maleh and the SNC was the issue of how best to respond to the regime’s growing brutality. Al-Maleh believed that the priority was to arm what is called the Free Syrian Army (FSA), a group that was mostly formed, reportedly, from army defectors. It seems that al-Maleh was responding to the popular will of the people inside Syria who had lost hope in peaceful means to bring down the regime. It also seems that revolutionaries inside Syria had also lost hope that sanctions, which the SNC heavily lobbied Western countries for, would have any meaningful effect on the regime. People also came to realise that outside military intervention would never happen.

It is worth highlighting that, despite its name, the FSA is composed of hundreds of independent groups. Their emergence is a miracle, considering that the regime has become known for taking revenge upon the families of defectors. It is also worth mentioning that Syrian conscripts are usually assigned to detachments that are hundreds of miles away from their home town (another regime tactic which makes it more likely that soldiers will obey orders to kill.)

The FSA’s disorganised nature, in the sense that it does not have a single command structure, is ”“ in my opinion ”“ a strength and not a weakness, at least given the circumstances with respect to the excessive brutality of the regime, and the fact that the regime has a huge network of informants. Because of a lack of any other viable alternative, many Syrians see the ”œFSA” as their last hope.

Exaggeration of ”˜outside influence’

Now to claim that there is no outside, foreign interference in Syria’s internal affairs is to deny the obvious. But in my opinion this ”œinterference” has been exaggerated (the analyses I’ve read with respect to this issue are based on speculations that are not supported by facts on the ground). Yes, there are countries who have always had a strong desire to see the Syrian-Iranian marriage fall apart. But to what extent these countries are influencing events on the ground is far from certain. For instance, the efforts reportedly led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia to equip the rebels with heavy arms have not yet borne fruits, and it seems the FSA is mostly using light to medium weapons.

Most of these weapons have either been bought from corrupt army officers, or have been acquired by raiding weapons caches. Qatar and Saudi Arabia reportedly would want to make sure that weaponry would only be distributed to those groups that would pledge allegiance to them. While some groups may accept the deal, it is far from certain that all groups would accept any preconditions ”“ as recently reported by Time magazine.

While the CIA may be present near the Syrian-Turkish border, all evidence points to the fact that the US is not very keen to arm the rebels, out of fear the arms would eventually fall in the hands of al-Qaeda and like-minded groups. In fact, Washington, despite the anti-Assad rhetoric we read about in media headlines, is not very keen on replacing the Assad regime with one whose allegiance to the US would be uncertain.

The two reasons just mentioned explain why the US has so far refused to supply weapons to Syria’s armed opposition. The latest discussions that took place in Geneva demonstrate that the US still prefers ”œa political solution” (whatever that means).

The fact that Syrian revolutionaries are not receiving the help they need to win the battle against the Syrian regime will certainly prolong the conflict. While many Syrians are disappointed by this indifference, I believe it is better for the future of Syria and its independence.

Syrians have already demonstrated mind-boggling courage and determination. They have made sizeable gains over the past year and they will certainly continue to make more. The signs are clear: the murderous Assad army, the regime’s iron first, is disintegrating, albeit slowly. While it is no reason to celebrate, it is the Syrians’ last hope, and if I were living inside Syria, I would hope the same.

This post was read 65 times.

About author View all posts Author website


"I don't fuck much with the past but I fuck plenty with the future."

4 CommentsLeave a comment

  • …someone cites this as “evidence” that Arar was “turned” in custody or really a double agent under the control of a western aligned intelligence service?

    For the record, the above strikes me as about right.

    Everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you and you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use.” ~ Steve Jobs

  • Until the Syrian opposition can join in a united front and agree to a declaration that all sects will be assured equal protection under any Syrian constitution, I don’t think the United States should be arming any opposition to the Assad regime. It matters not that the current regime represents about only 20% of the population and is a tyranny. Helping to install a tyranny of the majority would only make a mockery of the United States’ commitment to individual freedom and prove we’re fools too.

  • That Assad’s is an odious regime which in all justice deserves to fall.

    However, I believe that the Nuremberg Principles remain sound, that only a response to aggressive warfare should be a legitimate reason for one country to war on another and that aggressive warfare itself is the greatest crime of all. I’ve written several times about how humanitarian intervention has deep flaws as a utilitarian moral argument when far more people die every year from famine and disease which could be alleviated at a fraction of the cost in both blood and treasure of “humanitarian” war. I believe that the Russians are correct when they say that the West’s current love of armed intervention and regime change for ostensibly humanitarian reasons undermines the Westphalian norm and undermines the primary reason for the UNSC’s existence – preventing war between the Great Powers. I believe that people have the right to self determination, but not the right to have others do the fighting to realize that self determination. I believe that on a pratcical level, Western intervention in Syria is a can of worms that will spill out unintended negative consequences all over the region for decades to come.

    For all these reasons, I oppose Western military intervention against Assad’s odious regime.

  • Barbara Slavin (by way of Laura Rozen) reports:

    Influential Syria expert Joshua Landis presented a bleak view of Syria’s prospects Monday, saying that the country is headed for “a hard landing and it’s going to get harder.”

    Landis, who directs the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma and writes a daily newsletter on Syrian politics, “Syria Comment,” has opposed US military intervention in the past. He said Monday that he is now “torn” about whether the US should get more deeply involved in what the Red Cross has declared to be a civil war between the minority Alawite regime and majority Sunni population.

    “Obama has been very reluctant to lead on Syria,” Landis said. That “has been a smart policy” but it may not stay that way, he said, citing the rising death toll and fragmentation of the country.

    “I’m very pessimistic about the future of Syria and that’s what makes me so hesitant about jumping in,” he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. At the same time, he said “decapitation [of the regime] might work,” eliminating a president who is increasingly detached from reality.

    Bashar al-Assad “is living in this little world [where] everyone else is an extremist,” Landis said. Assad is a “loser” and “will never be able to put Syria back together again.”

    Landis said his criteria for whether the US should do more than provide humanitarian and other non-lethal support for the opposition was whether that would improve the situation.


    While horrified by the violence, Landis suggested that the current policy of limited external support for the opposition and tightening sanctions on the regime might be the best for the time being. “There isn’t an innocent Syria out there waiting to come in,” he said.

Leave a Reply