Syria’s civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011, hundreds of thousands of people have died; about 10 million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been convulsed with Islamic State (IS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the US and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with Russia.
Unfortunately, US President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US’ role in Syria from the American people and from world opinion.
An end to the Syrian war requires an honest accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive, role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including who is funding, arming, training and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring to an end many countries’ reckless actions.
A widespread — and false — perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed, the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when al-Assad allegedly crossed it (the issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria).
A leading columnist for the Financial Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines, recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton to arm the Syrian rebels fighting al-Assad.
Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama’s orders, provides organizational support and training.
Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover and other personnel in the war? The US government is not answering these questions, and mainstream media are not pursuing them, either.
On more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told Americans that there would be “no US boots on the ground.” Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon routinely denies that they are in the front lines.
However, when Russia and the al-Assad government recently carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening US troops on the ground. The public has been given no explanation about their mission, its costs or counterparties in Syria.
Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments and rare statements by US officials, we know that the US is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA coordinated war both to overthrow al-Assad and to fight the Islamic State group.
The US’ allies in the anti-al-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of US dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, airstrikes and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. US allies have spent billions of US dollars more. The precise sums are not reported.
The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget approval by the US Congress. The CIA’s role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.
To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by the US Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the Sept. 11, 2001 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa.
Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.
I subscribe to a different view: Wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that the US’ secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the UN Charter, and that the US’ two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple al-Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground.
The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than the US’ proxy warriors imagine. As Washington has prosecuted its war against al-Assad, Moscow has stepped up its military support to his government.
In the US mainstream media, Russia’s behavior is an affront: How dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead — perhaps inadvertently — to the point of military conflict.
These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident that Americans would respond with a resounding “no” to the ongoing US-led war of regime change in Syria. Americans want security — including the defeat of the Islamic State group — but they also recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa and Southeast Asia.
This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. Americans would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the public.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers