Is there a ‘right’ path for the U.S. in Syria?

By Anja Manuel
January 21, 2014

Key parties to the conflict in Syria are meeting in Switzerland on Wednesday. The participants have been downplaying expectations that the “Geneva II” peace conference — which will bring together for the first time representatives from the Assad government and various rebel groups along with major international players — will resolve the conflict, or even bring about a ceasefire.

For the U.S. government, the crucial issue at this meeting and beyond is determining if and how to intervene and provide support in a conflict where there may no longer be real “good guys,” or supporters of U.S. national interests, to back. This is particularly important given Washington’s interwoven interests throughout the region — not only in Syria, but in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Turkey and beyond.

U.S. support of the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviet Union during the Cold War teaches two valuable lessons for the current Syrian conflict. First, understand who we are helping, what their goals are and how these goals may differ from those of the United States. Second, think in advance about the endgame.

In Syria, the United States has been rightly careful about whom to aid — but as a result, the U.S. government has provided very little aid and thus created a void that others have filled. It is not yet clear whether Washington understands its own end-goals for the conflict and is communicating clearly how to achieve them. As history has demonstrated, this lack of clarity can lead to fateful unintended consequences. U.S. policy in Afghanistan in the 1980s provides a telling example.

Beginning in 1979, President Jimmy Carter authorized the CIA to send minimal assistance to Afghan rebels fighting the Soviet Union. The Reagan administration vastly increased this aid, to a high of more than $600 million a year in 1987. The Saudi government matched all U.S. funds.

In Afghanistan, the U.S. goal was to prevent the Soviets from gaining a stronghold — not to establish a viable Afghan state. Thus the CIA provided large sums of aid to the mujahideen rebels, but largely left the decision about which rebels to fund to the intelligence service of Pakistan, our close ally in the region. That intelligence service, the ISI, provided much of the aid to commanders associated with anti-American, radical Islamist leaders.

When the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan in 1989, Washington decided it had little interest in ensuring a stable Afghanistan — and this apathy allowed the country to disintegrate into a civil war by the early 1990s.

With Washington turning a blind eye, Afghanistan was conquered by the brutal Taliban regime that provided the critical safe haven for al Qaeda. The terrorist group had a sanctuary to develop and expand — and the September 11 attacks followed just a few years later.

The Afghan story mirrors today’s challenges in Syria. In contrast to Afghanistan in the 1980s, the Obama administration has (rightfully) been careful to supply arms only to vetted Syrian rebel groups. As a result, however, Washington has delivered very little military aid. The CIA has trained only about 1,000 rebel fighters this year.

By contrast, intelligence analysts estimate that Iran and Hezbollah have trained more than 20,000 or more to fight for the Assad government-supported militias.

The U.S. has overlearned one lesson from Cold War era Afghanistan — our timidity has left the moderate Syrian rebel groups and our traditional friends in the region reeling. Fed up with U.S. inaction, the Sunni kingdoms and some hard-liners have filled the void. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and private conservative Sunni donors in several Gulf States are now delivering arms and aid to some rebel groups that Washington considers dangerous.

It is right for the United States to ascertain who gets its arms and aid. But we now need to both step up the effort and lean hard on our friends in the region. Washington must particularly convince Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Kuwait, to first, stop supporting any rebel group that is arguably al Qaeda affiliated, and second, crack down on private citizens in their countries who are funding the most threatening hard-line groups.

To do this effectively, the United States must implement the second lesson from Afghanistan: the endgame matters.

If the U.S. government has a clear view of what type of regime we are willing to live with in Syria, and communicates this to our allies, it will be easier to convince them to coordinate their rebel aid efforts with Washington. We must reassure them that the United States is fully engaged in this crisis, and will not let a Hezbollah-supported Assad government, or an extremist Sunni government take hold and destabilize the entire region. Washington’s feeble efforts to date are insufficient.

This message grows in importance as al Qaeda-affiliated groups rage on in Iraq — recently capturing what was a hard-fought U.S. foothold in Fallujah — and as the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict destabilizes both Lebanon and Jordan.

There are fewer “good guys” to support in Syria now than there were in 2011, but — as Washington is beginning to realize — standing by helplessly is not a viable option. Similar to our robust diplomacy in Bosnia in the 1990s, which was backed by substantial aid to Croat and Bosnian forces and a credible threat of U.S. force, bold steps are required to end the conflict that is splitting the Middle East at its religious seams.

The United States and its allies should focus on these steps — such as threatening military action to degrade President Bashar al-Assad’s war machine and arming the remaining moderate opposition to defend itself, rather than putting its energy into negotiating incremental steps towards peace that may not take root.


PHOTO (TOP): A Shi’ite fighter, fighting along forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, carries his weapon as he runs along a deserted street in Hujaira town, south of Damascus, November 20, 2013. Picture taken November 20, 2013. REUTERS/Alaa Al-Marjani

PHOTO (INSERT 1): Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London, October 22, 2013. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett

PHOTO (INSERT 2): Taliban Islamic student militia ready with their anti-aircraft gun in Maidan Shahr in Afghanistan, September 21. 1995. REUTERS/Archive

PHOTO (INSERT): Mohammed al-Karaz, a Free Syrian Army fighter who said he lost one of his legs during the recent violence in Syria, uses his crutches to walk through a damaged street in the al-Soukhour neighbourhood of Aleppo, October 5, 2013. REUTERS/Hamid Khatib



We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

Let them have cake.

Posted by 2Borknot2B | Report as abusive

@ 2Borknot2B: I think you meant to say: “Let them eat cake.”

Anyway, let’s let the countries in the region deal with this issue. The USA has no business whatsoever in getting involved. We, in the USA, have had enough as far as involvement in the foreign intrigue of other nations outside our hemisphere. Let’s spend some time and money dealing with Western Hemisphere issues and let the Eastern Hemisphere deal with its own problems. Europe and the Arab League should step up and deal with the Syria issue.

Posted by explorer08 | Report as abusive

Syrian war is not about democracy, civil rights, Assad regime or anything related to Syrian people or Syria as a country. Syria has just bad luck, bad geography of being the best transit country for future natural gas pipelines from Persian Gulf to European Union. And United States/EU/Qatar/Saudi Arabia involvement on one side and Russian on the opposite site is related mainly to this very pipelines. If Russia wins there will be no pipelines, if UE/United States win up to 400 billion sqm of natural gas will flow annually through Syria. European Union+Turkey consume 500 billion sqm of natural gas a year, but they produce only 150. And over 100 of these 150 is from Netherlands and UK reserves in North Sea that would be depleted before 2025.
The rest 350 billion sqm is imported mainly through pipelines (280) from Russia 130, Norway 110 and Algeria/Libya 40. The remaining 70 is much more expensive imported LNG, over 30 billion sqm from Qatar. Norwegian natural gas reserves at current output will be depleted till 2030.
That means in the near future UE+Turkey will have to import at least 450 billion sqm of natural gas outside of Europe at current level of consumption. Algeria/Libya can supply only small part of this huge natural gas hunger.
That leaves UE with 2 big potential suppliers: Qatar+Saudi Arabia that have in total over 35 000 billion sqm of natural gas reserves and Russia +Turkmenistan that have in total over 50 000 billion sqm of natural gas reserves. At present there are no pipelines from the Gulf to UE, so Russia can charge 400 dollars per 1000 sqm of natural gas, the same as Qatar charges for LNG, much more expensive technology. If pipelines through Syria are built European Union can buy natural gas at least 2 times cheaper: for 200 dollars per 1000 sqm or less.
And of course importing natural gas mainly from Russia makes UE politically dependant on Russia. Saudi Arabia/Qatar absolute monarchs are a sort of vassals of NATO countries so no problem of political dependence here. Additionally importing natural gas by pipelines through Syria can eventually starve Russia or at least significantly diminish its revenues, resources for military development and influence in Europe. And there is also crude oil that could be transported by this route.
No good news for little Syria with such a bad political geography. And it is in the best interest of United States and NATO to back anybody against Assad or any regime that is Russian ally as stake here is much higher than in Afghanistan. Current model, with major Qatar/Saudi Arabia direct involvement is also the best from PR point of view. These countries do all the “dirty things” and US stays aside with relatively clean hands.

Posted by Wantunbiasednew | Report as abusive

@Anja Manuel, why dont you send your own children to go die in a war against Syria. Nobody here in the US is interested in going to war to fight for some terrorists that Saudi Arabia and Isreal support.

We should be supporting Assad and have him kill all of these terrorists. We need to stop funding terrorism in Syria!

Posted by KyleDexter | Report as abusive

We do wars for money. The other stuff is just excuses for the politicians. Any money in Syria? You do know we do not mind high oil prices now since we stand to gain in future energy production. Ideally, we would hope for continual upheaval in the middle east that would mantain high oil prices and thus improve the outlook for profitability in many of the alternative technologies we have been developing. The only unfortunate thing about these technologies is that many are relatively clean, and they upset who is already making most of the money.

Posted by brotherkenny4 | Report as abusive

The “right path”? Stay out of this mess!

Posted by AZreb | Report as abusive

I prefer to be prepaid for an answer to this helpless question. Best Regards Bernd Rickert

Posted by seafloor | Report as abusive