On Saturday, August 31, President Obama requested congressional approval for a limited strike on Syria in response to an alleged chemical attack carried out by the Assad regime ten days earlier. The alleged attack, which resulted in the deaths of over fourteen hundred people including over four hundred children according to some estimates, represented a potential transgression of Obama’s “red line” with regard to US intervention in the civil-war torn nation. Since Obama’s tough worded statement twenty-four hour news stations have been running “Syria Crisis” specials and independent organizations have been investigating both the legitimacy of the attack as well as whether or not the Assad regime is responsible. One aspect of the issue that has been largely left unanswered is the motive behind any regime implemented chemical weapons attack. At first glance the use of chemical weapons on his own people and the crossing of Obama’s “red line” seems like an unnecessary gamble for Assad. Although the opposition has achieved some gains in past months the regime remains the superior military force in the war behind its air power advantage. Why would Assad risk dragging an unwilling United States into the conflict with a blatant transgression of international law? To answer this question we must first take a look at the demographic make-up of Syria today and understand which Syrian’s support which side in the conflict.
Much has been made recently of the Syrian opposition’s extremist elements and lack of central organization. It is no secret that out of the more than twelve hundred militia groups currently fighting Assad the most cohesive and efficient are Salafists who gained their experience fighting Americans in Iraq. The composition of the opposition is certainly an important factor in Washington’s calculus as to which action to take in Syria, however, it is equally important to understand which Syrians still remain “loyal” to Assad and why. Opposition claims that they represent the true voice of the Syrian people notwithstanding; the fact is that around fifty percent of Syrians still live under the Assad government. Not all of these people are necessarily willing to take up arms to defend the government but they are sitting on their hands because, while they may not like Assad, they don’t like what they see from the opposition in the north any better. Assad’s constituency includes members of his own sect, Alawites who make up twelve percent of the population as well as Christians, Druze and other minorities who make up around twenty five percent of the population. Add to this the Kurds in the north, many of which are actively fighting the opposition seeking their own state, and rich Sunnis who believe they will be robbed of everythingtheyown if the rebels overrun Damascus (this is what happened in Aleppo). Assad’s is a fragile constituency and in recent months many of his followers have begun to turn to the rebels. Here we see the rationale behind using chemical weapons. When the opposition moved into Damascus’ Eastern suburbs Assad saw it like an infestation on his front porch. He gassed it before it could spread to the rest of his house. Since the chemical attacks, even Sunni villagers have begun shooting rebels out of town; they do not support Assad, but they are terrified of his potential wrath.
Tonight Obama will address the nation in an attempt to sell his rationale for a punitive strike on Syria. The resolution has nothing to do with defending Syrians, it has everything to do with defending the credibility of the US in the eyes of its adversaries in the Middle East and beyond. The decision taken by congress will, however, have huge implications for the Syrian people. If the US chooses not to punish Assad, the use of the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world will remain on the table, and more Syrians will die from their use.
Orion Wilcox is a senior Economics major from Bay St. Louis.
