Why did the State Dept and CIA decided Assad had to go? I have forgotten the reason. If you say chemical weapons, that was done to put down resistance already in action. What was the original trigger?
RocketSphere
•
7y ago•Edited 7y ago•
From the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, the United States has sought to overthrow Assad because his leadership contradicts their own interests in the region. American foreign policy in the Middle East, perhaps since after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has been centred expanding its regional influence in the Middle East to support its interests in the region. This includes strong support for allies like the KSA, or interventions in Libya or Iraq to topple adversary regimes and attempt to replace them with a more acceptable leadership. This whole calculus revolves around pursuing what would benefit the United States the most in the region and expand its power in the face of potential rivals, like Russia and China.
Assad has never particularly been favourable to American interests. When the United States included Turkey in NATO, and the United Kingdom formed a crescent alliance between Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, the Soviet Union had to change its strategy in the Middle East. They faced a wall to their south of nations that were allied with Western nations, and needed a way to rectify this. They decided to 'hop' over these nations and instead cultivate relationships with nations elsewhere in the Middle East, such as Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Iraq. The socialist background of these pan-Arab regimes made this sort of relationship politically feasible. Where a staunchly anti-Communist Turkish politician may gawk at the idea of ever working with the Soviets, a cadre of the Ba'athist Party who has been indoctrinated with pan-Arab and Socialist ideology will be more favourable towards accepting Soviet diplomatic advances. This is where their interests contravened. The Pan-Arab nations desperately needed to be supplied with weapons and provided training, while the Soviet Union needed an system of alliances to counter Western allies in the Middle East. Similar ideological backgrounds made this politically more appealing.
Nations like Syria became deeply entrenched in their relationship with the Soviet Union. While nations like Iraq or Libya never fully strengthened their relationship with the Soviet Union and at times became marginalized from them due to conflicting interests or shifts in power, Syria permanently rested under the wing of the Soviet Union. In fact, Hafez al-Assad, the Syrian commander who participated in several coups before consolidating power himself, was trained to be an officer at a Russian airbase in Kyrgyzstan. From the officer corps and upwards, the Syrian military was composed of individuals who had either worked with or been trained by Russian soldiers. Tartus Naval Base became the largest Soviet military base in the Middle East, if I remember correctly. Syria provided an ally to be used against Turkey and provide the Soviet Union access to the Mediterranean, while the Soviet Union provided Syria with an ally to deter against Israeli or American aggression in the region. Even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this relationship between the two nations remained strong. Syria never had a decent relationship with the United States, as a consequence. It appealed to the Soviets by making aggressive statements towards the United States in the name of socialism and anti-Imperialism, and supported Soviet diplomatic efforts. Syria retained this aspect of its foreign policy even after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, still bombastically supporting pan-Arab socialism and retaining its relationship with Russia. This ran counter to the interests of the United States. It ran counter to the objective of pacifying the Middle East or transitioning regimes towards being more favourable to America's regional interests.
What we are witnessing in Syria is decades of economic stagnation, broader regional discontent, and political fracturing manifesting into a civil war. America has capitalized on these trends to pursue its objectives of overthrowing adversary, Arab-socialist regimes in the Middle East and replacing them with governments either favourable to its allies or its own economic and political methodologies. There has been some confusion in the United States on what this will exactly entail, and how to accomplish this. The State Department and the CIA are notorious for having diverging policies in Syria, to the point where they have actually funded groups fighting each-other. In particular, the CIA is more-so focused on the geopolitical objective of wrestling a Russian ally out of its influence through any means, while the State Department is concerned about regional stability and Jihadism. The Syrian regime is portrayed as awful in the United States to morally justify its geopolitical objectives and make them more appealing to its own population.
Syria economically stagnated due to an unfortunate drought, migrants from neighbouring wars in the Middle East, and a failing socialist economic policy that, while once uplifting Hafez al-Assad's base of farmers and workers, began to ostracise them. Faith had been lost in Pan-Arab regimes after decades of failing to deliver on their promises, and slowly eschewing their rhetoric into whatever would help them maintain their legitimacy. They also failed to show solidarity in the face of American aggression in the region, which only worked to hinder nationalism and support of pan-Arab regimes. This is why Bashar al-Assad once said that if
Syria falls, we will all fall.This is a reflection on broader political trends across the region, where feelings of hopelessness and desperation were gripping people as America pursued an aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, oppressive regimes tried to retain their grip on power, and pan-Arabism decayed as Pan-Arab nations economically self-flagellated themselves. The people of this region would begin to turn towards more desperate options and ideologies, like Jihadism, to rectify the injustices they saw in their countries. This worked in America's favour of instigating instability to spur change in the direction of American interests and ideology, or at the very least, crippling the allies of American adversaries.