America's 'Arabization of War' Strategy Fails in Syria
There are many reasons inside and outside Syria, along with Saudi Arabia itself, that caused the US's "Arabization of War" strategy to fail in Syria.
The White House has a hot new idea of leaving Syria but at the same time maintaining a presence there by deploying an Arab military force to the military bases that the United States has established in Syria, mainly from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi Arabia).
Thus, America's strategy of "Arabizing the war" has stirred up memories of one of the bloodiest wars of all time, which are America's most bitter memories in Vietnam.
The plan appears to have been actively pushed for almost a month, following a visit to the United States by Saudi Arabia's defense minister, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. And the existence of the plan was announced on April 17 by Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Adel al-Jubeir, at a joint press conference with UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Following the missile strike on Syria, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders reiterated that President Donald Trump still wants to withdraw troops from Syria early. The establishment of a Saudi military force at the bases the Pentagon has built in Syria appears to serve US interests.
The US government has not only proposed to Saudi Arabia that they replace US troops, but this offer has also been made to Qatar and the “United Arab Emirates” (UAE), which would also play a similar role to the Saudis.
In addition, the source also revealed that the Gulf monarchies will provide money to rebuild the devastated northern part of Syria. It seems that the US and this Arab coalition will rely not only on military force, but also on "buying off" the local population.
However, this strategy called “Arabization of the Syrian war” has raised a big question: “Does the US consider Russia and the Syrian government or its own allies, the Kurds, or the two countries with great influence in Syria, Türkiye and Iran, in such a matter?
 |
| The US has just launched a new strategy called "Arabization of the Syrian war" |
No, of course not. Even after withdrawing, the US was not willing to give up its “dominance”. However, for many reasons, the idea of replacing the Americans with Arabs failed.
First: All parties involved
None of Syria's neighbors, except Israel, see any benefit in having the Saudi military replace the Americans.
Iraqagainst this idea, because they want to avoid having to deal with a terrible rebellion on their borders, arising from the war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, led by the two largest powers in the Middle East, Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Libyaalso opposes the appearance of Saudi Arabia on the Syrian “stage”, because of concerns that clashes between Sunnis and Shi'ites will shift the fire into their borders, turning Libya into a new “Islamic arena” in North Africa, creating favorable conditions for IS to expand its power here.
Even Jordan, the ally most dependent on Washington and London, is feeling “tired” of this initiative. As a pragmatic politician, King Abdullah II of Jordan is well aware of all the negative consequences that could arise from this dangerous commitment.
Türkiye- the country is a force to be reckoned with in Syria, and the Saudi presence is even less needed, because Riyadh's presence would weaken Ankara's influence in the controlled area of northern Syria.
The nearly 30,000 troops currently under Turkish command in Idlib and Afrin (recently relocated to Aleppo from Eastern Ghouta and Eastern Qalamoun, recently liberated by government forces), have been backed by Riyadh and Abu Dhabi for almost the entire duration of the “civil war” in Syria.
Türkiye has every reason to fear that, if it gets directly involved in Syria, Saudi Arabia and the UAE will re-subjugate these groups and absorb more to assert Riyadh’s dominant influence in the region.
Egyptalso said “NO” to these proposals. The Cairo government also flatly ruled out any involvement in the implementation of this plan.
Mohammad Rashad, a senior official in Egypt's General Intelligence Directorate, expressed Cairo's position: "The Egyptian armed forces are not mercenaries and cannot be hired or ordered by foreign countries to be deployed in a certain area. This is unacceptable."
The statement was an indirect response to a call by the US President's new national security adviser, John Bolton, to the head of Egyptian intelligence services, Abbas Mustafa Kamil, inviting the Cairo government to participate in the plan.
Second is: The person himself
There are also many problems awaiting the Saudis within Syria, first of all on the side of the Bashar al-Assad regime. The US idea of “Arabizing the Syrian war” will only make Damascus more determined and confident in its actions against the foreign powers tearing its country apart.