The War on Terror: 14 Years and Russia's New Moves in Syria

(Baonghean) - The US has just commemorated the 14th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 tragedy, along with reviewing the results of the war on terrorism. Recently, Russia also announced the provision of weapons and sending military experts to Syria, causing concern for the US and the West. To better understand these issues, Nghe An Newspaper had an interview with Associate Professor, Dr. Major General Le Van Cuong - former Director of the Institute for Strategic and Scientific Studies, Ministry of Public Security.

PV:Major General, what is your general assessment of the September 11, 2001 event and the results of the US war on terrorism after 14 years?

Major General Le Van Cuong:The September 11, 2001 event was the darkest event in the 239-year history of the United States. In the context of Washington being the only superpower, at the peak of its economy, military, politics, diplomacy,... in this country, there were two attacks on the Twin Towers in New York - a symbol of economic power and the Pentagon - a symbol of military power, causing thousands of casualties and shaking the world. After this event, the George W. Bush Administration launched a war on terrorism, which has been going on for 14 years now.

Russia admits to supplying weapons to Syrian government forces.

At a general level, I have some assessments as follows: The initial goal of the war on terrorism was to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and eliminate the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, build a democratic government following the American and Western model in these two countries, serving the interests of the United States. Based on that, it can be said that the success of the war on terrorism was that the United States eliminated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes, killed the terrorist Osama bin Laden, and basically ensured security and safety for the people. But after all, the war has not achieved its set goals, and the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq after 14 years is even much worse. According to many sources, the United States spent up to 2,000 billion USD on the war, 10,000 NATO soldiers were killed, hundreds of thousands of soldiers were injured, etc. The United States got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, under the conditions of China and Russia's recovery, becoming challenging factors, creating a new situation that is disadvantageous to the United States. In many ways, the decline of the superpower role, the unfavorable balance of power and global power structure for the US are their greatest failures.

PV:Public opinion believes that the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) is a product of the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What is the Major General’s opinion on this issue? What is the difference between IS and al-Qaeda?

Major General Le Van Cuong:Before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime, there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. After the US removed Hussein, al-Qaeda organized a branch in Iraq in 2005 with the aim of terrorizing US interests. This branch grew strongly, disrupted the situation in Iraq, became a large force, operated independently since 2011 and in 2013 separated from the parent organization to form an independent organization called IS. Public opinion that IS is a product of the US war is completely correct. History cannot be assumed, but we can think that if the US did not conduct unjust wars, there would certainly be no IS.

Up to this point, the difference between IS and al-Qaeda is shown in 3 points. First, in terms of goals, al-Qaeda is an international terrorist organization, its terrorist activities are revengeful, not to conquer territory, and it does not aim to establish a state. On the contrary, IS wants to establish a Sunni Islamic state that covers the Middle East and North Africa. Second, IS is many times more brutal than al-Qaeda. Third, IS has strength in many aspects (military, economic, ...), much stronger than al-Qaeda. I think IS is a global threat, stronger, more dangerous, and more difficult to destroy than al-Qaeda.

PV:How is President Obama's anti-IS strategy different from President Bush's anti-al-Qaeda strategy? After a year of thousands of airstrikes by the US-led coalition, why has IS not weakened but seems to have gotten stronger, Major General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:Since 2014, President Obama has launched a counter-terrorism strategy that is very different from President Bush's strategy in 2001. In terms of combat methods, Obama believes in mobilizing international forces, while Bush chooses a unilateral approach. Obama is very cautious, not using infantry to directly engage in combat, mainly air strikes, while Bush mobilizes both the army and the marines. In other words, Obama declared that he would fight IS using indirect warfare, through air strikes and local forces, which is very different from Bush's method 14 years ago.

It is true that after 1 year of conducting about 6,500 airstrikes, IS has not weakened at all, and even seems to be getting stronger. This can be explained by 4 reasons. First, IS's high-level organizational apparatus is a strong one. Second, IS's army is good at fighting, with 130,000 jihadists who are tightly organized and well-trained. Third, IS has abundant funding from 3 main sources: exploiting and illegally selling low-priced oil; Sunni Muslim merchants and economic groups in the Middle East and North Africa secretly transferring money to support IS; kidnapping and ransom activities, etc. Finally, IS has a large number of 800 million Sunnis as its rear base, who see IS as the only force to fight against the Shiites in Iran.

PV:When launching the war against IS, the US declared to destroy IS wherever they existed. Up to now, it seems that the goal that Mr. Obama set is increasingly distant. What is the explanation for this issue, Major General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:The problem is that all wars end with infantry and army. However, the lesson of President Bush when sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq made Mr. Obama firmly decide not to send ground troops to fight on the battlefield. By air strikes, IS can never be destroyed. And thanks to the Iraqi army, after 8 years of Mr. al-Maliki's rule, this country's army is weak and disintegrated, even though the US has sent people to "hold hands and show them how to do it". Other countries in the Gulf have only just conducted air strikes, and even if they send ground troops, it will be difficult to solve this war. The goal of destroying IS is far away because the current method itself cannot push the war to the end, the US is at a crossroads, in a dilemma, the lesson of failure is obvious.

PV:Recently, Russia admitted to supplying weapons and sending military experts to Syria, and the West believes that Russia has begun to intervene in Syria. Why did Russia take such action at this time? What is the reaction of the US and the West to Russia's actions, Major General?

Major General Le Van Cuong:I think the above assessment of the West is still early, but Russia's actions are motivated by its own interests. Currently, the Russia-Syria relationship is "below allies, above friends". Syria has an important geopolitical and geostrategic position, located at the crossroads of Europe-Asia-Africa, Russia has a military base on the Syrian coast. More importantly, the Syrian conflict, especially IS, is directly related to the situation in Chechnya - Russia's autonomous republic. Many key generals of IS are Chechens. Russia is worried that if the al-Assad regime collapses, when IS takes power in Syria, Chechnya will certainly rebel, and it will be a tragedy for Moscow. That is why in the past, Russia had to protect the al-Assad regime - the legitimate government of Syria by all means.

Faced with this information, the US was extremely confused. First, they put pressure on surrounding countries such as Bulgaria, Türkiye, Gulf countries, etc. not to allow Russia to fly through their airspace to Syria. White House spokesman John Earnest said that the US was concerned about the information that Russia could continue to send troops and aircraft to Syria. The US side affirmed that Russia's support in terms of human and material resources for Syria was counterproductive and destabilizing to the international community. I think that up to now, the US government has not understood Russia's motives. Now is the time for the US and the West to study and predict Russia's true intentions.

PV:From such facts, what can the major general predict about the upcoming Syrian conflict?

Major General Le Van Cuong:The conflict in Syria is a hot spot in the Middle East, more complicated than the conflict between Israel and Palestine. The US and the West say they will support the moderate forces in Syria against Assad. But Syria has no moderate forces, the strongest force currently confronting and opposing the Assad regime is IS, along with 14 mixed, conflicting forces that are both fighting against the al-Assad regime and IS. Here the US faces a paradox, both fighting IS and not ruling out the possibility of using IS to overthrow Mr. Assad. The US is in a tight spot when it declares that it needs to mobilize the entire world to fight IS, but does not allow the Assad regime to fight IS. The US has contradicted itself in its own words and actions.

I believe that the Syrian conflict will have to end sooner or later before Obama leaves office, at the latest in 2016. If this is resolved, if the US accepts some compromise, Obama will end his term with undeniable diplomatic achievements, in addition to the Iran nuclear deal and normalization of relations with Cuba.

If Syria falls into the hands of IS, the conflict will escalate many times over, and the entire Middle East and North Africa will fall into an uncontrollable spiral of violence. Sooner or later, there will be a compromise solution between the US and Russia, but I believe that in any solution on Syria, the key point must be the al-Assad regime. The conflict in Syria is likely to last, but it will not erupt into a regional war that engulfs the entire Middle East. Sooner or later, the US and Russia will have to cooperate with each other as they did on the Iranian nuclear issue.

PV:Thank you, General!

Thu Giang(Perform)