By By Paul Iddon Sep 7, 2012 in Politics The arming of the Syrian oppositional forces by U.S. allies in the Gulf region constitutes aggression against the Syrian state. One has many withering terms in which to describe the Syrian president, one can list his war crimes and his odious crimes against the Syrian people. We (as far as "we" constitute "the west") can once again point the finger and laugh at the gall he has to insist that he is working on bringing about democracy, on his terms, when he has crushed the primary opposition forces to his rule. We know how to furrow our brows with contempt when we see that clumsy sly looking individual announcing his latest and baseless claims to be bringing about peace, or masquerading as a reformer. However the point one is striving to make is that these factors shouldn't be the driving force in allowing the armed opposition to the Assad regime be directly armed by regional allies of the United States in the region, hence Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Turkey for allowing opposition forces to use the volatile border region of that country in which to ferry arms to their comrades in Syria. One could make a case that this is a good thing, the Syrian regime is as we know destroying large parts of the country's cities and infrastructure in its bitter fight against these insurgents. Surely something to be condemned, but that doesn't excuse the manner in which the west is turning a blind eye to the arming of these rebels. One should also make clear that one does feel the Assad clan has ruled Syria too long, one would like to see a more open Syria as well as a democratic Syria. However, cheap talk about it being time for Assad to go since one family hereditary rule is a regressive way to reform is a shallow excuse for supporting western (primarily United States) policy towards Syria as is scoffing at the hollow and deceitful nature of Assad's promises to reform. Why do I make such a claim, well, the Al-Khalifa royal family has ruled the island kingdom of Bahrain for some 200 years now, that hereditary rule is actually nearly as old as the United States is. Yet, we seldom (if ever) condemn the Bahraini minority Sunni regime – which rules the Shia majority island in a blatantly sectarian manner – for offering hollow and relatively empty reform propositions. We know how to sneer at the Iranian regime when it wants a place at the table to discuss peace possibilities, since that regime has made no secret of its direct support for Mr. Assad. However, the United States is essentially -- by allowing its regional allies a free hand in supplying the Syrian opposition with arms, arms that are seemingly becoming more hi-tech than the ubiquitous AK-47's and RPG-7's currently present in the rebel arsenals (if the rumour about the supply of Stinger missiles to these factions is to be believed we should expect to see more Syrian Air Force jet fighters and attack helicopter fall out of the sky over the coming weeks) – carrying on in the same manner as Iran. The only different obviously being that it is arming the rebel opposition elements, setting forth the potentiality for this war to continue and devolve not only into a more severe and depleting civil war, but into a proxy war between the regional powers, with the United States pouring arms and capital into one side of such a conflict. This clearly and unambiguously undermines the current administration in Washington from giving a credible claim to be a forthright and thoughtful arbiter. It just makes the U.S. another aggressive faction in this bloody game. Are we going back to the days of William Casey's CIA where we're arming self-professed rebel movements for some greater good or to act as our proxies in a cold war? The euphoria we saw in Libya – amongst the, lest we forget, pain, depravity and misery people had to endure throughout that war – was quite a sight to watch – albeit from afar. The longest reigning dictator in recent history had fallen at the hands of his own people, his megalomaniac cult-of-personality regime finally being permanently dismantled and discarded. Some may argue that is all the justification we need in order to back the Syrian opposition to do the same thing against the Assad regime. One is doubtful of the validity of that analogy, granted, no two – even if very similar – cases are the same, nevertheless Libya clearly isn't a model for Syria. What the United States should be doing is making clear to the United Nations, particularly to its opposition at the Security Council and the General Assembly (the far too often neglected 'rest of the world'), that it opposes Qatar and Saudi Arabian meddling in the Syrian Civil War. It should denounce both factions of the war, get Security Council Resolutions from Russia and China, understand that these powers vetoed resolutions in part because of the manner in which the NATO powers went whole hog in Libya after they had only been mandated and authorized through the UN Security Council to enforce a no-fly zone over Benghazi to protect Libyan citizens from the wrath of Colonel Gaddafi. And also to put forth a tenable resolution that will commit the world powers and the regional states to act as arbiters and humanitarian assistants. This could also see to Iran, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia being committed to cease the transfer of any military equipment or spare parts to both factions of that civil war. The international community has a duty to stop the fighting, not prolong it and contribute to the destruction and deprivation of the Syrian state as a whole. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an individual that deserves a great deal of contempt. An accidental heir to his late father Hafez he has trumpeted himself as a reformer at heart, and continually insists that he is serious about bringing forth democracy in Syria and in turn ending 40-years of Assad and Baathist one-party rule. However, reality continues to unambiguously show that his regime is the last of the Baathist regimes, which -- as the Iraqi Baathist regimes used to -- utilizes brutal means in order to consolidate its power and control over its population.One has many withering terms in which to describe the Syrian president, one can list his war crimes and his odious crimes against the Syrian people. We (as far as "we" constitute "the west") can once again point the finger and laugh at the gall he has to insist that he is working on bringing about democracy, on his terms, when he has crushed the primary opposition forces to his rule. We know how to furrow our brows with contempt when we see that clumsy sly looking individual announcing his latest and baseless claims to be bringing about peace, or masquerading as a reformer. However the point one is striving to make is that these factors shouldn't be the driving force in allowing the armed opposition to the Assad regime be directly armed by regional allies of the United States in the region, hence Qatar and Saudi Arabia, as well as Turkey for allowing opposition forces to use the volatile border region of that country in which to ferry arms to their comrades in Syria.One could make a case that this is a good thing, the Syrian regime is as we know destroying large parts of the country's cities and infrastructure in its bitter fight against these insurgents. Surely something to be condemned, but that doesn't excuse the manner in which the west is turning a blind eye to the arming of these rebels.One should also make clear that one does feel the Assad clan has ruled Syria too long, one would like to see a more open Syria as well as a democratic Syria. However, cheap talk about it being time for Assad to go since one family hereditary rule is a regressive way to reform is a shallow excuse for supporting western (primarily United States) policy towards Syria as is scoffing at the hollow and deceitful nature of Assad's promises to reform. Why do I make such a claim, well, the Al-Khalifa royal family has ruled the island kingdom of Bahrain for some 200 years now, that hereditary rule is actually nearly as old as the United States is. Yet, we seldom (if ever) condemn the Bahraini minority Sunni regime – which rules the Shia majority island in a blatantly sectarian manner – for offering hollow and relatively empty reform propositions.We know how to sneer at the Iranian regime when it wants a place at the table to discuss peace possibilities, since that regime has made no secret of its direct support for Mr. Assad. However, the United States is essentially -- by allowing its regional allies a free hand in supplying the Syrian opposition with arms, arms that are seemingly becoming more hi-tech than the ubiquitous AK-47's and RPG-7's currently present in the rebel arsenals (if the rumour about the supply of Stinger missiles to these factions is to be believed we should expect to see more Syrian Air Force jet fighters and attack helicopter fall out of the sky over the coming weeks) – carrying on in the same manner as Iran. The only different obviously being that it is arming the rebel opposition elements, setting forth the potentiality for this war to continue and devolve not only into a more severe and depleting civil war, but into a proxy war between the regional powers, with the United States pouring arms and capital into one side of such a conflict. This clearly and unambiguously undermines the current administration in Washington from giving a credible claim to be a forthright and thoughtful arbiter. It just makes the U.S. another aggressive faction in this bloody game.Are we going back to the days of William Casey's CIA where we're arming self-professed rebel movements for some greater good or to act as our proxies in a cold war?The euphoria we saw in Libya – amongst the, lest we forget, pain, depravity and misery people had to endure throughout that war – was quite a sight to watch – albeit from afar. The longest reigning dictator in recent history had fallen at the hands of his own people, his megalomaniac cult-of-personality regime finally being permanently dismantled and discarded. Some may argue that is all the justification we need in order to back the Syrian opposition to do the same thing against the Assad regime. One is doubtful of the validity of that analogy, granted, no two – even if very similar – cases are the same, nevertheless Libya clearly isn't a model for Syria.What the United States should be doing is making clear to the United Nations, particularly to its opposition at the Security Council and the General Assembly (the far too often neglected 'rest of the world'), that it opposes Qatar and Saudi Arabian meddling in the Syrian Civil War. It should denounce both factions of the war, get Security Council Resolutions from Russia and China, understand that these powers vetoed resolutions in part because of the manner in which the NATO powers went whole hog in Libya after they had only been mandated and authorized through the UN Security Council to enforce a no-fly zone over Benghazi to protect Libyan citizens from the wrath of Colonel Gaddafi. And also to put forth a tenable resolution that will commit the world powers and the regional states to act as arbiters and humanitarian assistants. This could also see to Iran, Qatar, Russia and Saudi Arabia being committed to cease the transfer of any military equipment or spare parts to both factions of that civil war.The international community has a duty to stop the fighting, not prolong it and contribute to the destruction and deprivation of the Syrian state as a whole. This opinion article was written by an independent writer. The opinions and views expressed herein are those of the author and are not necessarily intended to reflect those of DigitalJournal.com More about Syria, Syrian civil war, Bashar alAssad, syrian rebels Syria Syrian civil war Bashar alAssad syrian rebels