May 04, 2016
by Ghassan Kadi
On global account, and especially when it comes to Syria, thanks, a great deal of thanks must be given to Russia, her people and leadership for the wonderful support.
Thank you President Putin. Thank you so much.
President Putin however, would not have backed a nation which was not strong in her resolve, one that does not have a determined army, and one that does not have a leadership that resonates with what is Russia’s view of a viable and proper leadership and global future.
Had President Assad’s presidency been teetering on the edge of a 51-49% Western-style approval status, and had his leadership of the army and nation was subject to Western-style election promises and eventual broken promises, President Putin would have seen Assad as an unreliable ally and would have totally distanced himself from him.
Had the Syrian Army split up happened in accordance with the Saudi and Qatari financial incitements that only managed to lure a few weak and shameful officers worked to the extent that the plotters wished, and had the Army with its personnel and hardware got split up in a manner that gave that so-called “Free Syria Army” (FSA) an upper hand over the loyal Army, or at least an equal footing, the history of the “War On Syria” might have taken another direction.
But none of the above was to happen.
In hindsight, the only thing that remotely looked like an “uprising” in Syria five years ago was this FSA, and to as far as the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” was concerned, the FSA was not alone capable enough to perform the required task.
Sooner or later however, as it was seen by those who knew well who the enemies of Syria really were, that was bent to change.
This brings us back to the founding articles: “The Anti-Syrian Cocktail”, “The Anti-Syrian Vendetta” and “The Anti-Syrian Politics”.
It was very predictable to foresee back then when those articles were written five years ago, that this whole war against Syria was eventually to turn into a sectarian war, one that was led by Sunni fundamentalists, and one that aims to destroy the nature and fabric of secular Syria.
When the sponsors of the FSA found themselves unable to lure enough recruits from the valiant and determined ranks of the Syrian Army, they immediately spread their recruitment lure further afield; and the inevitable happened as they declared Holy War (Jihad) against Syria.
The rest is now history, but it was foreseeable, and the early articles in the preceding chronicles are honest historical testimonies etched in time.
Along the way during the war, and as the Syrian Army demonstrated more resolve, battle lines had to be reset several times; including those who define who is a friend and who is a foe.
Individual and group reconciliation deals within Syria have seen many Syrian Army deserters come back home to the Army that united them all.
Many Syrian and non-Syrian activists who initially believed the lie that there was indeed a “revolution” in Syria, have sooner or later realized that they have been fooled.
In and around this, many directives and alliances have changed. What is important to note is that the changes in alliances did not take place on the side of Syria as represented by her Government and Army. The changes in alliances are happening on the side of the once formidable “Anti-Syrian Cocktail”. This alone is a telling sign, because only losers have to change tactics and strategies.
Even within Erdogan’s infamous AKP, power was taken away today from Turkish PM Davutoglu by none but his own trusted leader and President Erdogan, because the latter is seeking the ultimate power of a Sultan.
Whilst this is the first sign of a crack within Erdogan’s AKP, similar and perhaps bigger signs have been seen within the ranks of Al-Saud in relation to the crown lineage.
The resilience of the Syrian Army has even put the United States itself at a fork. The US had to decide to choose in between traditional allies and an ill-defined and unforeseeable future.
The chronicles presented herein in the previous chapters are a testimony of how certain alliances have grown stronger, as they were foreseen to become stronger, and how others have almost vanished into oblivion.
There is a decisive consequence to choosing friends and adversaries.
“Tell me what friends you keep, and I will tell you who you are”, as an Arabic proverb puts it simply. One would argue that the same applies for one’s choice of enemies; if he/she decides to have enemies.
As Syria was exhibiting both resilience and resistance, and as her friends were united by more than just transient fantasies and ideologies, and as the Syrian Army was scoring more and more victories against all odds, and as Russia eventually took the plunge to side by Syria, and as the “Anti-Syrian Coalition” was already breaking up, decisive decisions had to be made by all parties involved.
The decision of Syria and her allies to remain united became stronger and more determined.
The predicament of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” to fragment and fall into the abyss became more inevitable.
When Bandar Bin Sultan promised the Americans that he could wield the new wave of post Al-Qaeda Jihadists, they believed him. After he fell on his sword and not only brought himself to a state of disrepute in the eyes of the USA, but also brought down the whole stature of his kingdom, the USA and in particular the Obama Administration was growing tired of the Saudi strategist planning.
It was not until Obama spelt it out and called Saudis and others “free loaders” that the schism became obvious enough to be seen in chapter one in “Geo-Political Analysis For Dummies”, but the writing was on the wall some years earlier.
Before too long, the 28 pages of the 9/11 report will be published. If Saudi Arabia had nothing to hide, it would not be jumping up and down trying to prevent this.
When Saudi Arabia’s Bandar fell out of US favour, and after the death of former King Abdullah, the new and incumbent Saudi administration could have taken the option to distant itself from Bandar’s reign of radicalism, and for it to save its own neck, it could have chosen to tow the American line. But it didn’t.
The decision was taken not because Saudi Arabia suddenly decided to be an independent state of independent decisions, but simply because the new King and his 30 years old Deputy Crown Prince wanted to throw a hissy, a hissy that dictated that they would favour Daesh to the USA.
Driven by the fervour of Muslim fraternity, the Saudis and the Turks made the choice of to favour Daesh against America.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey both think that as far as their alliance with America is concerned, they are indispensable.
They are wrong.
As geopolitical situations change and evolve, what is unchangeable is common interest. When common interests diverge, alliances fall apart.
As the Empire is reeling with coming to terms with Russia becoming a formidable force that has demonstrated in Syria that she is able to successfully achieve military success at a fraction of the cost that brings America total failure, the USA is no longer able to claim an exclusive world leadership status.
Syria has chosen her friends, or should we say that Syria has commanded her friends. Russia took the call and responded in the most formidable manner.
As the enemies of Syria began to lose the war and the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” began to get dismantled, and as Russia emerged as a new power and broker, Turkey and Saudi Arabia had the chance to reconsider their alliances.
However, between choosing Daesh or the USA, Turkey and Saudi Arabia chose the former. They will need to bear the brunt of this decision.
Many wars of the past have been won or lost on such decisions, and as the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” continues to crumble, we can see one more nail in the coffin of this infamous and once united alliance, we can only wait to see more of its undoing and unfolding before our eyes.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment