Shambolic Strategy in Syria: The Arrogance of the West

Syria. What an unparalleled mess.

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks, you will be aware of the air strikes that the US, UK and France have carried out on the war-torn country in response to President Bashar Al-Assad’s supposed use of chemical weapons on his own people. The reaction to these has been divided; many people support, many condemn.

I have been very critical of the Western world as a whole previously, and I plan to do so again. It is not simply the attacks that I find staggering, it is the complete attitude we have to the area. There seems to be an abhorrent idea that, due to the fact we are the powerhouses of the world, we can magically act as ‘the world’s police’ and stop what we brand as ‘evil’ happening in the world.

Except it isn’t because of evil that we intervene is it? If that were the case, we would have attacked Syria with this sort of air strike more than 100 times and this would not be news now. You can’t just pick and choose when to be offended by the use of chemical weapons. You also can’t intervene when you feel like it will gain you a political advantage, and then go and claim to be doing what is best for the people of Syria.

Back in 2013, the US first decided to fund rebel groups against Assad, albeit rather half-heartedly, and tried to pass it off as a reaction to chemical attacks. The real reason was, as many often now know, the Kirkuk-Banias oil pipeline that runs from Northern Iraq to Syria. In 2003, this had been accidently destroyed by US forces (imagine my shock at that). The estimated total oil on Syria’s land was 2.5 billion barrels in 2013, it hardly needs me to say why the West decided to get involved – it is that imperialistic idea of ‘more wealth will make us better’, not for those masses of people that Assad has slaughtered.

And then a year later, in 2014, a US-led coalition furthered their involvement in Syria with the aim of defeating ISIS. Funnily enough, ISIS were the strongest distinct force against Assad (and the West, through terrorism) at the time, so by weakening the only real organised rebel group in Syria, we effectively handed back control of the country to Assad – when he was perhaps on his knees.

Now it is Assad who is the supposed dangerous force, so naturally now he is the target of the Western world. Again, what does the policy stem from? The countries that are thousands of miles away living in a heaven of ignorance relative to those impoverished Syrians that we claim to be aiding.

It would be pretty much impossible for me to defend the brutal Assad if I’m honest, he is a heinous, power-hungry dictator who must a small proportion of the hit for the state that his country finds itself in. But it isn’t as we are led to believe.

Assad has bombed his own people for years. Now that there’s the label of a ‘chemical attack’, many ignorant Westerners come out and suggest that this warrants an attack on a country that I would argue was in a more stable state before we entered it than it is now. Just because it is against the UN and NATO conventions, that makes it so much worse apparently.    

I don’t buy it. Through that, what we are suggesting is that it is ok for Assad to use normal bombs to kill his own people. Again, I struggle to see how that shows that we want what is best for the Syrian people, and are attempting to ‘liberate’ them, like we have with Libya and others previously.

No one looks at this debacle from the point of view of the Syrian public, and this is perhaps the most arrogant mistake we make even now. The majority of the Western world think that we are the great liberators, that those Syrians want us to come in and save them like a hero out of an action movie.

Those same countries that have caused the trouble they find themselves in now? Those same countries that have effectively gone into their country and upset their livelihoods for wealth? Those same countries that fought against the biggest rebel group of the country and are now fighting the government that fought the rebels? Heroes? You’ve got to be having a laugh.

On top of this, approximately 80% of Syrians support Assad. Where did I get that statistic from? From my dad, a person who has actually visited the country and spoken to some people that reside there. Question the reliability if you want, but the fact is that that view does not fit the agenda of many of the Western media, and although it borders on the lines of conspiracy theorems, it isn’t what the rich moguls want us to hear, for they are the ones that have a vested interest in Syrian oil. So you won’t find that sort of statistic in the mainstream media. You only need to look at the example of a Sky News presenter cutting off a correspondent who was about to speak more accurately on the matter to prove this point.

In no uncertain terms, the air strikes have done absolutely nothing to aid the Syrian chaos that clouds the country far more than any missiles or chemical weapons ever will. In 2014, we went in to ensure the end of ISIS, we failed, and now four years later we are attempting to wage war on the one distinct force that battled them before.

Democracy is a predominantly Western term and, I say this as a guess nevertheless, but I don’t believe it can be implemented in countries such as Syria. Because that is what we are claiming to do right, give the people a chance at fairer governmental control? It is a natural process that has to take its time to come around, history has shown us that. Yet we ourselves still take an imperialistic, backwards approach to countries such as Syria.              

The hypocrisy of the West stinks. And regretfully, it will continue to do so for the near future.