The short-lived Assad dynasty has a complex history that ironically came to power by participating in a series of coups that ultimately established the family’s leadership in 1971. Bashar’s father, Hafez, was a key player in the 1963 Syrian Coup d’Etat that brought the Ba’ath party into power; and eventually declared himself president after initiating a third coup from his role as defense minister in 1970. Since then, Hafez and his son’s reign entrenched corruption over all public and private sectors across the country.
As an Assyrian-American, I visited family often in northeast Syria growing up, and distinctly remember my confusion as a child when I observed portraits of Assad on every building, school, and street billboard. My aunts begged me to be quiet when I raised concerns about his control.
It’s no secret that the Syrian people have been oppressed across many facets of their lives under the Assad regime. Some family members in Al Hasakah argued that this made life safer, others believed the opposite. Regardless, the Arab Spring in 2011 demonstrated the breaking point of an oppressed population, further burdened by the effects of western sanctions on a dictatorship that citizens did not elect in the first place. Though we are still waiting for the dust to settle, the global celebrations by the Syrian population and diaspora are well deserved.
The downfall of the Assad regime in Syria should be seen as a canon event that was bound to ensue the domestic upheavals of the last decade. It’s natural that an unelected reign would also face its own demise. Though we don’t know Syria’s imminent future, one should consider historical context when watching the recent chaos, and keep in mind the reasons why America should not get involved in the rebuilding process.
The case of Iraq from 2003 to present serves as a blaring example as to why American involvement in Syrian domestic affairs post-Assad is not a good idea. Historically, western involvement in regime change in the Middle East does not bode well for the locals. The United States under George W. Bush first invaded Iraq under the infamous guise of weapons of mass destruction and the dethroning of an oppressive Saddam Hussein. After the “liberation campaign” led by American soldiers, over 200,000 civilians were dead, many more displaced, and a complete obliteration of all infrastructure had taken place. Additionally, the post-Hussein elections yielded a grand shift in power from the Sunni faction to the Shia and Kurdish, which produced escalation of sectarian tensions and bombings, beheadings, and kidnappings.
The U.S. government was forced to deploy thousands more troops after 2014 when ISIS captured one third of the country and grew in numbers. Iraq became a battleground for four more years until ISIS was virtually defeated and the government regained control of its territory. However, demonstrations in 2019, dubbed the “Tishreen movement,” demanded fundamental reform of the western implemented political system, and proved lethal with 450 dead and over 20,000 wounded. Using a new electoral system in the 2021 election, another unprecedented shift in power yielded shifting alliances and tensions that sometimes inspired drone attacks. Despite a checkered past and the remaining obstacles to reach a healthy government, Iraq was recently described as more “secure, stable, and open” by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General to the United Nations Security Council.
One can argue the above escalation in Iraq can be correlated with the original American-sponsored election that sparked tensions and snowballed into years of more death and destruction for Iraqi locals. Perhaps the population was not ready for democracy. It wasn’t until recently that hope reignited for the country’s economy through a development road project that attracted investment from a few Gulf countries. Current President Abdul Latif Rashid has also announced that his country is “now at peace,” but one should recognize this is at the cost of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. A similar long-winded democratic campaign in Syria could cost more civilian lives and destroy infrastructure, a feat both Syrian citizens and American tax dollars cannot afford.
An additional result of oppression combined with near-decade long uprisings is the formation of salafi-jihadist extremist groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This group being the ultimate reason for Assad’s downfall further complicates the situation, as it seems Syria is being handed to this Turkey–backed group (which theoretically makes it a NATO-backed terrorist group, a complexity not even I would like to address at the moment). Lest we forget, HTS was added to the U.S. State Department’s existing designation of its predecessor, al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) in May 2018, and a “dangerous opposition group.” Simply put, acknowledging HTS as the new Syrian governing entity would legitimize the terrorist organization and is not responsible foreign policy.
Considering HTS’s classification as an FTO and the $10 million bounty on its leader Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the implications of the peaceful transition of power that Syrian Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali promised to supervise present an ethical dilemma that the West need not be involved in. Essentially, al-Jalali has recognized the imminent transfer of government to an extremist organization. If the American government follows suit and considers the pending removal of the $10 million bounty, it would be extremely problematic and could plausibly lead to another reallocation and drainage of American hard power. Have we not learned from our experience with the Taliban while withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan in 2021?
Additionally, many concerning reports regarding the safety of minority groups under HTS power in Syria emphasize the group’s past brutality, including against Christians. Curfews imposed in HTS-dominated areas now run from 5pm to 5am, further restricting daily life, and leaving many minority groups feeling uneasy. Bread and water shortages have worsened, and a Christian physician was killed by sniper fire while trying to flee Aleppo. Any diplomatic interaction between American soldiers and HTS terrorists would indirectly endorse these worsening conditions, and place the United States on morally shaky ground.
Irresponsible American interaction with a terrorist group was briefly exposed during the Arab Spring in Syria, and was summarized well in an LA Times article: “In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA.” This horrifyingly demonstrated the failures of working with designated terrorists in the Middle East and reminds us of the constant unpredictability that’s attached to working with extremist groups similar to HTS.
Coincidentally, high-level representatives from western and Gulf countries who have had documented influence or physical presence in Syria via proxy or otherwise, convened at the Doha Forum this past weekend. In addition to the forum’s program, leaders likely discussed potential avenues for a peaceful and stable shift in transition of power between old and new governments in Syria.
Iran, Russia, and Turkey, joined by UN representatives, held Astana-style talks regarding the fate of Syria in the context of maintaining stability in the region parallel to the rise of HTS. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, all agreed the conflict needs to end and political dialogue with “legitimate opposition groups” should be established. Araghchi also met with Syrian and Iraqi representatives to ensure cooperation and avoid further escalation. Qatar has also declared “renewed interest” in reigniting Gaza peace talks, and implied it would like a unified Arab stance on Syria. This is an objectively good response from local actors, who in the spirit of realpolitik are responsible for ensuring their own regional stability. Let’s allow the Middle East to make its own decisions regarding…the Middle East.
In the wise words of President Thomas Jefferson, “Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and crimes among themselves, while we pursue in good faith the paths of peace and prosperity.”
The inherently interconnected geopolitics of the Middle East present a needless danger for our deployed military resources and troops. For starters, American military presence in northeast Syria puts us at direct odds with our NATO-ally Turkey, another irresponsible risk and waste of resources. The northeast is made up of ethnic Arab, Kurdish, and Assyrian populations—Turkey claims a majority of those Kurds are associated with the Syrian branch of their domestic terror organization, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Erdogan vowed to continue all military operations against this group “with determination until there is not a single terrorist left,” a clear signal of impending danger for American troops interacting with Kurds in the region.
Responses from surrounding countries further complicate the situation for American troops on the ground. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wasted no time in his military takeover of the buffer zone at the (previously demilitarized) Syrian-Israeli border, under the guise of deterring any “hostile forces” from establishing dominance in the area. Turkey also doubled down and encouraged the islamists to advance even further and claim more land for themselves.
Assad’s downfall also carries implications for the tensions between the West and Iran, whose top diplomat Araghchi recently threatened that Iran would stand “against groups that are without a doubt carrying out an American-Zionist conspiracy.” Conspiracy or not, this is a clear message of rising tensions and possible danger to Americans in the region. Escalation with Iran, Israel, and America in Syria carves a path for future troop deployments, and less resources for the United States to focus on its own domestic issues.
Jefferson was right in promoting non-interventionism, and we have no business other than to pursue foreign and domestic policies that benefit the security and prosperity of our own country. Meddling in government transitions in the Middle East is not an issue American soldiers take an oath to solve when joining the military. As cliche as it sounds, we have our own problems to fix. Between the ticking bomb of the U.S. national debt, the Pentagon’s lack of explanation for its audit failure, and the unspoken immigration crisis, the United States simply does not have the time or resources to project itself into international conflicts. A little over a month ago, we were bracing for our own “civil unrest” amidst an upcoming election, a dire signal that we’ve slightly veered off track from our own pursuit of “paths of peace and prosperity.”
The United States’ original reason for deployment into Syria was ISIS. It has failed to give a reason for its continued presence since the defeat of the extremist group in 2019. Now more than ever, we need to withdraw our soldiers from Syria, before tensions rise and we’re caught in the local crossfire.
