Searching for Solutions in SyriaNile Bowie, Contributor Following clashes between militant rebel groups and government forces that claimed the lives of 80 Syrian troops [3], rebels in Aleppo have reportedly taken 11 hostages and vowed to release them only when a new state is established [4]. While Bashar al-Assad attributes the perpetuation of Syrias crisis to outside forces [5], Iran has expressed its readiness to mount an armed resistance against foreign military forces in Syria [6]. Regardless of who perpetrated the recent killings in Qubayr and Houla, the profoundly disturbing images of lifeless children begs the question, has the Syrian crisis reached a point of incorrigibility? Western media has largely relied on unconfirmed opposition accounts crediting the Shabiha, pro-government Alawite militias with carrying out massacres across Syria as a result of the Assad government brainwashing the militia into believing the Sunni majority was their enemy, as reported by The Telegraph [7]. Germanys Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has recently reported that anti-Assad Sunni militants carried out the massacre in Houla, targeting pro-government Alawi and Shia minorities: Those killed were almost exclusively from families belonging to Houlas Alawi and Shia minorities. Over 90% of Houlas population is Sunni. Several dozen members of a family were slaughtered, which had converted from Sunni to Shia Islam. Members of the Shomaliya, an Alawi family, were also killed, as was the family of a Sunni member of the Syrian parliament who is regarded as a collaborator. Immediately following the massacre, the perpetrators are supposed to have filmed their victims and then presented them as Sunni victims in videos posted on the internet [8]. Reports of massacres have been framed to fit a pre-determined conclusion, in line with the foreign policy objectives of Western capitals by implicating the Assad regime with orchestrating violence in order to build popular support for aggressively toppling the Syrian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has recently accused external forces of inciting violence by providing arms and material assistance to militant opposition forces, stating, They want the international community to be filled with indignation and start a full-blown intervention in Syria [12]. Following the killings in Qubayr, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner called on the world to exert maximum financial pressure on Assads government through strong sanctions that can help hasten the day the Assad regime relinquishes power, while assuring that the US would support the use of force against Syria as authorized under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter [13]. Although Hillary Clinton has openly acknowledged that members of Al-Qaeda and other groups on the State Departments terror list are fighting alongside opposition rebels supported by the United States [14], countries belonging to both NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have provided extensive financial and material support to the militant opposition. Former FBI translator turned whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has reported that NATO/American-affiliated troops have conducted operations on Jordanian soil near Syrian border in the village of Albaej [15], as US troops reportedly train members of the Free Syrian Army along with Jordanian forces in order to prepare them for an international military drill in the country [16]. Syrian officials report the presence of intelligence operatives from Mossad and the CIA, as well as employees of private military contractors such as Blackwater in Syria; security forces have reportedly detained French, Turkish, Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese gunmen operating inside Syria [17]. While the editorial policy of The New York Times permits the publication of pieces such as the ostentatiously titled Assad, the Butcher, which incongruously accuses the foreign ministries of Russia and China of living in a fantasy world before calling on those nations to receive comprehensive punishments for being complicit in more than 12,000 Syrian deaths, the Western and Gulf capitals strategy of arming militant opposition forces and extremist groups has worked to foment atrocities and further inflame regional sectarian tension, invalidating any attempt to abide by Kofi Annans Peace Plan [21]. Publications released by The Brookings Institution, a US think-tank noted for its influence on American foreign policy, provides further insight into the nature of Washingtons objectives in Syria. Brookings March 2012 Middle East Memo titled Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change, is a testament to the underlying politicization of the Responsibility to Protect in Syria, as atrocities are orchestrated as a pretext to protect civilians, to warrant toppling the Syrian government and furthering Washingtons geopolitical objectives in the region. While Hilary Clinton and others pay lip service to supporting the ceasefire proposed by the Annan Plan, Brookings advisers suggest Washington pin down the Asad regime and bleed it, keeping a regional adversary weak, while avoiding the costs of direct intervention [24]. The US continues pressuring neighboring countries like Jordan and Turkey to provide support for the militant Syrian opposition, These allies would have to provide secure bases for the opposition on Syrias borders, protected by their own armed forces. Their militaries could do much of the arming and training, in conjunction with the United States. Area intelligence services, perhaps including Israels, could also work behind the scenes to undermine Asads regime and bolster the opposition [25]. Brookings Memo highlights Washingtons commitment to overthrowing the Syrian government using the most cost-effect means possible, the hope is that the United States could fight a clean war from 10,000 feet and leave the dirty work on the ground to the Free Syrian Army, perhaps even obviating a massive commitment to Iraq-style nation-building [26]. The toppling of the Assad government would offer the United States and its allies in Tel Aviv and Riyadh substantial strategic advantages, as the underlying object of supporting insurgent activity against Damascus is to undermine Iranian influence in the Arab world. Syria under Bashar al-Assad is the fundamental channel that links Hezbollah with Iran, serving as a transit point for conducting training operations and distributing material assistance to the Palestinian resistance. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has theorized that the toppling of Assad would be a major blow to the radical axis [Syria, Iran, Hezbollah] and a major blow to Iran. Its the only kind of outpost of Iranian influence in the Arab world and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza [27]. Although Syrias opposition in power after the downfall of Assad would be a compliant entity to the foreign powers supporting it, the SNC would likely be unable to conjure the political leverage needed to enforce order, and heinous violations of human rights would no doubt occur under it; if Salafist elements were able to usurp authority, Syrias Alawite, Druze and Christian populations would likely be subject to sectarian violence and persecution. Saudi Arabia is motivated by the prospect of becoming a dominant regional power and the ideological aspirations of quelling the expansion of Shia identity through neutralizing the governments of Tehran and Damascus, as adherents to Sunni Islam recognize Alawites as part of the Shia sect. Turkey is also determined to increase its influence in the region and possibly expand its territory by annexing northern regions of Syria under appropriate circumstances. Certain steps can be taken by the international community to ease tensions at the administrative and grassroots levels, namely by encouraging direct talks with between Bashar al-Assad and representatives of all internal opposition organizations, including members of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian National Council, the Muslim Brotherhood and the National Coordination Committee, a coalition of left-leaning political parties staunchly opposed to foreign intervention [30]. Although both the opposition and the Syrian government have exercised inappropriate and excessive force indiscriminately throughout the conflict, the government of Bashar al-Assad is the legitimate legal authority in Syria. The Assad government has issued reforms allowing for multi-party competition, the establishment of an independent judiciary, a two-term limit on the presidency and political pluralism through inaugurating a new constitution passed in a referendum held in February 2012. If a ceasefire can be upheld through a power-sharing agreement between representatives of various opposition groups and the current government in Syria, the international community should rightfully encourage such a transition. Both sides must be encouraged to use the maximum amount of restraint, no matter how severe the provocation. In the case of successful dialogue between the Assad government and representatives of the opposition, the creation of UN-administered arms-free zones can be established in population centers if opposition leaders can be persuaded to call for the gradual disarmament of rebel forces. Given the degree of brutality exerted by those responsible for the atrocities in Houla and elsewhere, it is to be expected that certain individuals would not respect such a ceasefire; the motivation for their brutal actions may be sectarian, ideological, or financial. Neutral external individuals and institutions could encourage inter-faith dialogues between regional spiritual leaders, and perhaps influential clerics can be persuaded to issue fatwas or the equivalent against the further perpetuation of violence in an attempt to cool sectarian tensions. If the Syrian government and members of the opposition can come to a conducive transitional agreement where all parties have a degree of influence, joint security coalitions can be formed comprised of UN personnel, Syrian soldiers and former rebels to ensure that the ceasefire is exercised. Those who act outside the ceasefire using illegally procured arms and explosives could be individually prosecuted or dealt with by force if they pose an immediate security threat. If the majority of Syrian people desire a change in leadership, the world must respect their aspirations; however, such a decision can only be reached once the domestic security situation has transitioned to appropriate levels by both sides respecting the ceasefire. Those individuals who value stability founded on the pillars of peace, compromise and conflict aversion must make their voices heard and stand with the Syrian people to help steer them out of these dark times, and eventually, help them heal. Notes Article originally posted Nile Bowies blog here. Nile Bowie is a syndicated freelance writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. linkwithin_text=Related Articles: 