Unlike for people in the Middle East, the number-one priority for the US seems to be the increasing al-Qaeda presence in Syria. Experts on Syria and terrorism put too much emphasis on terrorism and the emergence of the “al-Qaedaism” in the region and particularly Syria. It seems that Washington does not even care about the human sufferings in Syria.
Former CIA chief Michael Hayden, for instance, explained how his view has changed in recent months. According to the CIA chief, the big question for the US is how to look at the crisis in Syria: whether the US should look at the future from where it stands currently or whether it should think in terms of the future from what it envisions the future to be and to try to understand how the Syrian crisis will affect US interests 10 years from now.
It seems that many US officials share this hesitant perspective on Syria. What would happen if the US were to intervene in the crisis in the near future? Would it affect the increase of al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria over the next few years? Or, what will happen 10-15 years from now if the US does not get involved in the Syrian crisis now?
In addition to these views, US officials seems hesitant toward any intervention because it would be extremely difficult to explain to the American people why they should get involved in Syrian affairs.
However, US media has increased its reporting on Syria. Almost everyday, news channels broadcast live coverage of Syrian news that reminds us of the eve of war in Iraq. At that time, too, the US media was considering war scenarios and possible intervention plans as well.
Is this a sign of a possible US intervention in Syria? That's hard to say; however, I did not get the impression that Washington was as cool as it used to be. The political climate in D.C. can be described as anxious and hesitant.
I think the parties that want to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his regime need to convince America's political elite as well as the American people that the continuation of the crisis increases the likelihood of an al-Qaeda presence in Syria and the rest of the region.
Currently, the American political elite believes that in the post-Assad period, radical Islamists will take control of the country. Therefore, it is preferable to many Americans that Assad stay in power rather than radical Islamists controlling the country.
It seems that the Syrian opposition has failed to explain the relationship between free choice, stability and radical Islamic growth in the world; someone needs to explain to Americans and Westerners that the best remedy for radical Islamism is stability.
Wars and conflict are the foods of al-Qaeda that make the organization grow and gather strength. For instance, 9/11 was the outcome of regional conflicts around the world; al-Qaeda had gained confidence in training its terrorists as well as the sympathy of local Muslim communities where its militants had fought throughout the 1990s.
Without al-Qaeda's efforts in Chechnya and Bosnia, it would not have been able to penetrate moderate Islamic societies such as Turkey, Bosnia and Kosovo. Because of the organization's zealous efforts to “help” fellow Muslims during times of war, Muslims welcomed al-Qaeda during peacetime as well.
In the post-9/11 period, the US was successful in significantly reducing al-Qaeda's operational capacity. However, local crises, like those in Libya, Syria and Yemen, have once again become a breeding grounds for al-Qaeda to get back on its feet.
Therefore, it is critical for the Syrian opposition to explain to the West that the continuation of chaos only serves the interests of both al-Qaeda and Iran, two American enemies. If the crisis in Syria is allowed to continue for another year or two, then America and the West should be ready for yet another wave of terrorist attacks over the next 10 years, after al-Qaeda rebuilds its power.
In order to avoid such a possibility, the US needs to do something to restore order in Syria as soon as possible.