With the recent United
States actions in Syria, a look back in time is in order to help us put the
American relationship with the Assad regime into perspective.
Back in July 1986, a
Central Intelligence Agency classified document entitled "Syria: Scenarios of Dramatic Political Change"
was produced and circulated at the highest levels among the Reagan
Administration. The report was prepared by the Agency's interestingly
monikered Foreign Subversion and Instability Center, part of the Office of
Global Issues and proposed "...a number of possible scenarios that could
lead to the ouster of President Assad or other dramatic change in
Syria...". The President Assad referred to in the document is Hafez
al-Assad, the father of the current president in Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
Hafez al-Assad took over as president of Syria in 1971 after a military
coup in in 1966 which brought the Ba'ath Party to power. He served as
president until his death on June 10, 2000. What many of us forget is
that he actually improved relations between the West and Syria by supporting the United
States-led coalition in the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991.
Here is the cover
memorandum for the rather somewhat "sanitized" document along with the
circulation list:
The document opens by
noting that President Assad's position within Syria was strong and that Syria
was "enjoying unprecedented stability and a high degree of grudging
respect in the Arab world". The document purported to
"...identify the individuals and groups that might impel or impede
takeover attempts and presents indicators that would suggest specific scenarios
are unfolding...". It goes on to note that Syria is governed by an
Alawite minority that is deeply resented by Syria's Sunni majority and that
factionalism has become entrenched in the nation's political and military
elite. The document anticipated that there were several scenarios that
could see the Assad regime toppled:
1.) A power struggle over
succession - the writers of the document suggested that the President's
brother, Rifaat, was well positioned to succeed Hafez but that his unpopularity
would result in a very short term in power. The document notes that there
is a lack of a dominant leader which could create a situation in which there is
factional infighting over the division of power, resulting in a scenario where
there is a cycle of military coups with no leader able to retain power over the
medium- and long-term.
While that scenario may
have been anticipated by the CIA, Assad's first choice as successor was his
brother, Rifaat, who was exiled from Syria when he attempted to seize power in
1983 - 1984. Hafez' next choice was his eldest son, Bassel, who was killed
in 1994 in a car accident. He then turned to his younger son, Bashar, the
current President, who took over the presidency in 2000 in a peaceful
transition.
2.) Mismanagement of the
conflict with Israel or the role of Syria in the Lebanon civil war - the
writers of the document suggest that Syria's goal of achieving military parity
with Israel could lead to an Israeli preemptive attack. As well, Assad's
goal of achieving control over Lebanon might result in significant losses by
the military which was largely Sunni. A military setback on the disputed
Golan Heights would have the greatest potential for creating anti-regime
protests. If Assad were to use excessive force in crushing Sunni-led dissent,
this could lead to further instability.
3.) Factional tensions
between the Alawis and Sunnis - the writers of the document note that Sunni
dissidence had been minimal since Assad crushed the Muslim Brotherhood
insurgency in Hama in 1982 but that there were residual deep-seated tensions.
Here is a quote from the document giving us a prophetic glimpse at what
lay ahead for Syria and its sectarian war:
"Although we
judge that fear of reprisals and organizational problems make a second Sunni
challenge unlikely, an excessive government reaction to minor outbreaks of
Sunni dissidence might trigger large-scale unrest. In most instances the regime
would have the resources to crush a Sunni opposition movement, but we believe
widespread violence among the populace could stimulate large numbers of Sunni
officers and conscripts to desert or munity, setting the stage for civil
war....Sunnis make up 60 percent of the Syrian officer corps but are
concentrated in junior officer ranks; enlisted men are predominantly Sunni
conscripts. We believe that a renewal of communal violence between Alawis and
Sunnis could inspire Sunnis in the military to turn against the regime."
Here are two screen captures showing the indicators of the anticipated scenario:
The document also notes
that:
"A general
campaign of Alawi violence against Sunnis might push even moderate Sunnis to
join the opposition. Remnants of the Muslim Brotherhood–some returning from
exile in Iraq–could provide a core of leadership for the movement. Although the
regime has the resources to crush such a venture, we believe brutal attacks on
Sunni civilians might prompt large numbers of Sunni officers and conscripts to
desert or stage mutinies in support of dissidents, and Iraq might supply them
with sufficient weapons to launch a civil war."
Keeping in mind that this
document was written during the final years of the Cold War and that the Soviet
Union was an ally of Syria, the document notes that Moscow's status in Syria
would depend on the makeup of a new regime. In spite of his dependence on
Soviet military aid, Assad was cautious about excessive Soviet influence within
Syria and had, in fact, gone against Moscow's wishes by invading Lebanon in
1976. If the new regime was led by the Alawite minority, the relationship
between the Soviet Union and Syria would likely have remained static. If,
however, the Sunnis gained power, Moscow's position would likely have been
weakened because of Sunni resentment of the Soviet support for the Alawite
minority.
So, what were the anticipated
implications for the United States? The authors of the document suggest
that the worst outcome for Washington would be a scenario of chronic
instability interrupted by a series of military coups that resulted in a Syria
that had incoherent leadership and increased volatility. This would
create a situation where there would be little chance of furthering the Middle
East peace process. Ironically and prophetically, the authors also note
that "...a weak central government in Damascus might add to Syria's
attractiveness as a haven for terrorists...".
The document noted that
U.S. interests would be best served with a Sunni regime controlled by
business-oriented moderates. This would result in a scenario where
Syria's new leadership would see a need for Western aid and investment to build
Syria's economy. As is typical of Washington, it's all about what's in it
for America's highly influential business interests.
Given what has happened
in Syria over the three decades since this document was written, it if
fascinating to see how much of the anticipated scenario has played out.
Syria has long been in the crosshairs of the United States, particularly
because it has played a front row role in the Arab world's anti-Israel
movement. The document also anticipates the potential for terrorists to
use a divided Syria as a "haven" and, in closing, makes this chilling
proposal:
"Although Syria’s secular traditions would make it
extremely difficult for religious zealots to establish an Islamic Republic,
should they succeed they would likely deepen hostilities with Israel...".
Just what
the world needed, another Islamic Republic founded on fundamentalist Islam.
Even knowing the likely hood of terrorists gaining a haven the US still did it. Almost seems like the wanted that to happen...
ReplyDelete