Although there are few details about
the attack at the time of this posting, it seems that this is the latest
attempt by the Syrian rebels to disrupt Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Human rights organizations report that
Halqi’s bodyguard and five civilians were killed in the bombing.
The bombing in Damascus this morning highlights an
interesting development in the Syrian civil war. Rebel groups increasingly turn to guerrilla, asymmetrical
type attacks against the Syrian regime.
Suicide bombers and improvised explosive devices have become common
instruments in the fight to overthrow the government.
These tactics also reflect the large influx of militant
fundamentalist organizations to Syria since the war began. Groups like al-Nusra Front, an
organization with ties to al-Qaeda, provide weapons, ammunition, and other
supplies to segments of the Syrian opposition. As such organizations join the fight against the al-Assad
regime, Syrian rebels’ tactics have changed also.
The militant groups’ support for the Syrian opposition
movement has provided much support as the international community largely
refrains to intervene. Their
participation in the conflict, however, will further limit the chances of
international intervention in Syria.
Muddling the message and motivations of the opposition, these
organizations will cause the West to further hesitate before supporting the
opposition.
What’s more?
This could make the conflict in Syria even more deadly. Because of the support the Syrian
opposition receives from terrorist organizations, the international community
may be less likely to act even if the Assad regime resorts to widespread use of
chemical weapons, which President Obama has referred to as a “red line.”
"Syria's Al-Nusra Front 'Part of Al-Qaeda'." BBC. Published electronically 10
April 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22078022.
"Syria Crisis: Pm Halqi Survives Damascus Car
Bombing." BBC.
Published electronically 29 April 2013. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22335430.
Ironically, it may take a combination of increased attacks such as these along with the increased presence of terrorist groups like Al Queda within the Syrian opposition to actually force the hand of the United States and the west to get involved in Sria. An increased presence/ influence of islamist groups could lead to future security concerns for the U.S. and NATO's future in the Middle East and mean that intervention could be a move the west could strategically make in the coming future.
ReplyDeleteIn being exposed to the continued violence and ongoing civil war in Syria, it makes me question the value of life--at least in the eyes of most Americans. In a war that has claimed at times more than 6,000 people a week, the U.S. continues to remain indifferent; its citizenry unshocked by the conflict and its brutality. At what point do we become so immune to violence and removed from its consequences? Then we have an event like the Boston Marathon Bombings, where Americans could not believe such an act could occur, on our home, secure soil. Yet, only three people were killed...what makes our lives worth so much more than that of a Syrian teenager?
ReplyDeleteHow would you propose that we get involved in Syria? Especially if it comes out that the opposition is being supported by terrorist groups.
DeleteIt is not that the lives in Syria are worth less than lives in the US, the problem is that the situation is incredibly complicated and intervention could have MANY unforeseen consequences. We are still blamed for the rise of Al-Qaeda because of our support for the Mujahideen during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's. It is a tragedy that so many people are dying in Syria but the US can't take any drastic unilateral action.
JQGray you bring up an interesting point. I don't think that it is so much that we hold our lives as worth more than that of a Syrian but we do take the security we enjoy in our country for granted. Definitely through media influences we have been living in a time were it is almost expected to hear about an IED explosion or another round of violence somewhere in the Middle East, but it is almost unheard of to have it occur here at home.
Delete
ReplyDeleteIn an incredible twist of irony, Assad has now decried the US for "supporting al-Qaeda" in Syria. Should we support the opposition despite ties to terrorism, in order to depose a regime our government has designated a state sponsor of terror?
(http://article.wn.com/view/2013/04/18/Syria_s_Assad_says_West_will_pay_for_supporting_alQaeda/#/related_news)
I think this is an interesting article because it presents a new idea to the argument. I feel that this debate continues to go around in a circle: the pros and cons of supporting a rebel group.
ReplyDeleteIf our policy makers are so hesitant to support rebel groups (which they should be) then I believe we need NEW ideas. Safe havens may be the solution. Create a territory within Syria that is protected by the international community. This territory can be used by "approved" rebel groups to organize, but more importantly, it can provide a safe location for refugees.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2012/10/18/how-to-fix-the-us-policy-toward-syria
As it turns out, the United States has announced that it is sending American troops to advise the Jordanian government and military. This has already caused greater tension between Jordanians and there government, as many Jordanian protesters have demonstrated against this. Could it be that the Jordanian monarchy falls from power as a result of American troop movements to stabilize the region?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/jordan-protests-us-troops-syria-chemical-weapons.html
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/jordan-protests-us-troops-syria-chemical-weapons.html
I completely agree with the statement that the influx of militant groups could harm Syria in that the international community, namely the U.S., will be slow to send aid or troops for combat purposes. I think that these groups providing support will, possibly, in the long term harm the opposition forces because of the lack of international intervention.
ReplyDeleteThe radical militant groups in Syria will either harm the chances of an international intervention or increase it. The US is very concerned about what a post-Assad Syria will look like, given the numerous factions within the opposition. The fact that these radical militant groups are now gaining power in the opposition is concerning. If the US arms the opposition, it would be arming the unfavorable elements of the opposition as well, which could pose some pretty serious issues.
ReplyDeleteWith so many faction groups making up the opposition it is definitely possible that we will end up arming the wrong people. And if the rebels are successful we could potentially see an armed and angry group much like the Mujahideen after the Soviet Afghanistan conflict.
Delete