Column: What did the US lose as it failed the Syrian revolution?

Column: What did the US lose as it failed the Syrian revolution?

I am almost certain that the US losses in the Syrian revolution outweigh the losses of the concerned countries combined. I am almost certain too that Washington is the biggest loser because of its volatile, conspirative and collusive positions according to the analyses of the Syrians and non-Syrians concerned with the Syrian revolution and its role.

Let us start from the moral ground on which the US historically declares as a victory for democracy, human rights and refusal of tyranny and dealing with the use of internationally-banned weapons. These are ethical issues that the US has violated on a daily basis for a bloody criminal gang which turned out to be the number one enemy of its own people.

The US complicity with the criminal regime in Syria created a massive earthquake that shook the moral ground of the US policy, in particular the international one, especially after the US President Barack Obama wiped his own red line after the Assad gang suffocated to death 1400 children, elderly and women, using internationally-banned weapons on the morning of August 21, 2013 – a day which will haunt Obama, his administration and future US administrations for going back on their promises. And despite the promise made by the head of the gang to destroy his entire chemical weapons arsenal under the auspices of Russia, he continued to target Syrians using toxic chlorine without facing any consequences.

Due to the US inaction in Syria and after 7 months, Putin was encouraged to invade and annex Crimea in defiance of the US and its weak and indecisive president. The two wars waged by the US in both Afghanistan and Iraq had cost the nation $ 6 trillion – which is equivalent to a third of the GDP of America – and dragged the country into the worst economic situation in 80 years; however, its Obama’s reluctance, hesitation and collusion in Syria outweigh the cost of the two wars.

Because of that, the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan began moving away from America, as he began to get the sense that the US had abandoned him for Kurdish militias hostile to the Turkish state. Therefore, Obama sacrificed a strategic relationship with Turkey for a Kurdish militant ally. This situation forced Erdogan to realign – during his latest visit to Russia – with Putin. Erdogan is fully aware of the historical bitterness between Russia and his country, but certain political relations are highly required in such difficult circumstances.

The US administration did not succeed today in weaving any kind of relationship with any faction or community in Syria because of its indecisive and fluctuating policies. Meanwhile, the Russian policy provided a clear view of its purpose, which is to completely rely on the strategic balance of minorities, specifically the Alawites, and to extend beyond them.

The US is not aware of who its allies are; it has sought to train groups from the Free Syrian Army and then abandon them. It also abandoned its traditional ally, Turkey, which is clearly showed through the US support or silence towards the putschists or for the least favoring the generals of the coup over democracy and the Turkish people, and that was prominent through the US criticism of the way the Turkish government dealt with the putschists who bombed the parliament and government buildings, and the US refusing to hand over Fethullah Gulen – the number one defendant of committing the failed attempted coup – to the Turkish government.

The Kurds whom the US tried so hard to weave relationships with at the expense of the Syrian people and its Turkish ally are now retreating from them following the Turkish pressure. Therefore, who will trust the US in the region after this day?

The worst international political mistake is to deal with the present at the expense of the future, to affect the tactical over the strategic, and to think of you own interests at the expense of those of your allies’ would give you strength. On the contrary, being concerned with the interests of one’s allies is sometimes more important than one’s own interests.

Dr. Ahmad Mowaffak Zeidan – Orient news