We're funded by these television companies and more, including Buckeye Broadband.
Buckeye Broadband supports C -SPAN as a public service along with these other television providers.
Welcome back to Washington Journal.
We're joined now by Michael O 'Hanlon, Research and Foreign Policy Program Director at the Brookings Institution.
We'll talk about the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria.
Michael, welcome to the program.
Thank you, Mimi.
Nice to be with you.
So give us the context of the origins of the conflict in Syria.
There was, of course, this goes back to 2011 with the Arab Spring and the rebel movement then.
But then it had kind of reached a stalemate in recent years.
That's right.
And if anything, the Assad regime, President Bashar al -Assad, who's now defected and escaped to Russia, if anything, he had basically won the war because he reestablished control in most of the country, not all of it, but most.
And so the central corridor where most of the main cities are located in Syria, starting with Aleppo in the north.
Coming down to Damascus, he pretty much reestablished control of all of that.
The exceptions to that rule were primarily in the northeast, which is largely desert, where our friends, the Kurdish groups, were essentially in control.
Although that never made Turkey very happy, because you may recall Turkey has a Kurdish population as well as a Kurdish insurgent movement.
And so there's been sort of a complex relationship there.
But also in the northwest, There were remnants of the more extremist Sunni movements, ISIS, Al -Qaeda, but they evolved, they changed their name, and they were centered around a city named Idlib, I -D -L -I -B, to the north of Aleppo.
And so that's where this guy, al -Jilani, and his group really established a small form of government and control and even military industry of a population of maybe a couple million.
Over a period of years and frankly, I didn't really sense the strength that that movement was developing.
I think most people were surprised even closer watchers of Syria than I may be by what's just happened and the speed with which it happened.
But that pocket of resistance always existed up in the northwest to complement the Kurdish rebels or movement in the northeast, and then some small movements here and there with tiny pockets of land in the south.
That all came together in the last few weeks as President Assad's traditional supporters, Hezbollah from Lebanon and Iran and Russia, sort of lost their way, lost their ability to help him, and then his regime sort of just dissolved before our eyes.
So what do we know about the leader of this organization that now is holding Damascus, essentially, and seems to be leading most of the country?
Hayat Tahrir al -Sham, the leader is named al -Jilani.
You mentioned him before.
What do we know about him?
Well, we know maybe three big things and they push and pull in opposite directions.
One is that he's obviously a very effective military leader.
He's managed to pull together a coalition in a way that for 13 previous years nobody had come close to doing.
Second, he has extremist roots and, you know, links to al -Qaeda and ISIS.
But third, he has claimed now to be a moderate in the sense that he will We're good to go.
We're good to go.
My instinct would be to promise now to remove it, provided that we see behavior in these next few days and weeks and months that's consistent with the claim of Al -jalani that he really has moderated and that he will be an inclusive leader and that he will use violence sparingly and legally.
So if he holds up his end of the bargain or his promises on those on those issues, that I think we should indeed lift the terrorist designation.
There's no particular reason to think that just because it was correct five years ago, that it's still correct today.
But I think, as U .s government spokesmen and spokeswomen have said up until now, actions speak louder than words, and so let's see what kind of an arrangement and what kind of monitoring we can establish.
Uh, you know, in an early conversation with
And here's a portion of Secretary of State Blinken's statement on this, and I'll have you respond to it.
It says this:
Michael O 'Hanlon, that sounds really good, but Secretary Blinken's only going to be in office for a few more weeks.
So what are we expecting from the Trump administration?
Well, it's a good point, but even if Blinken were going to be in office longer, it would be hard to deliver on all those nice words.
They are the right words, I think.
But the idea that all of us are going to keep out of Syria and just let Syrians resolve this on their own is correct at one level, but they're going to need help rebuilding the country.
And so you're going to have to make a choice.
At what point do you consider a new government inclusive enough and competent enough that it merits our support, maybe even our financial support?
That's a big decision and that's not something that these general principles can really make the decision for you.
You have to put the principles out there and then watch what happens in practice.
And secondly, let's all remember how bad of a track record we, as Americans, have in trying to build democracies out of civil wars.
We've not done a good job with it, whether it be in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and I would underscore one particular warning of something we got wrong in Iraq.
We pushed too soon for early elections, thinking that elections equal democracy equal inclusivity.
It's not true.
Democracy requires protection of minority rights.
We are talking about the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.
If you'd like to join the conversation with Michael O 'Hanlon of Brookings Institution, you can call us.
The lines are Democrats, 202 -748 -8000, and Independents, 202 -748 -8002.
Michael, you mentioned all the other armed groups in Syria still fighting.
Right now, there's Turkish -backed forces, there's Kurdish forces, there's ISIS and others.
What does this mean for a united Syria going forward?
Are those, all those groups are going to have to lay down their arms?
Would they be willing to do that?
Well, I don't know if they should lay down their arms so much as come under the control of a central military and police establishment.
And I think they all need to have some sense that their protection is going to be assured.
So asking them to lay down their arms too soon, just like having early elections too soon, could be counterproductive.
So I think the key here is going to be for Jolani to establish himself as an inclusive leader who's fair to everybody, with the exception, of course, excuse me, with the exception Of former Assad regime elements.
Actually, I should be more clear.
I'm not saying they should be unfair towards those groups, but they are going to be punitive.
Those who were decision makers in the Assad government, the people who authorized the barrel bombing of civilian populations during the Civil War, the people who authorized the chemical weapons use.
Obviously, the perpetrator number one, President Assad, is gone and out of the country, but there are still going to be top levels of his political and military leadership who I think need to be put on trial.
We're good to go.
We will take calls, but before I do that, I want to just ask about Israel.
This is the front page of the Post.
Israel expands strikes in Syria.
Extensive attacks add to volatility, and the stated goal is preventing rebel access to weapons.
Syria's military has been completely decimated by Israel at this point.
I think their navy is completely gone.
How do you see this?
They've come under a lot of criticism from Arab neighbors about that, saying that this is opportunist and this is a land grab and things like that.
How do you see this?
Well, it depends on which action we're talking about.
I think sinking the navy was too much.
I think a future Syrian state...
I think so.
Let's talk to callers.
Ed is up first in New Jersey, Independent Line.
Good morning, Ed.
Yeah, good morning.
I noticed that the guests have made no mention of U .S. forces, of approximately a thousand U .S. forces, presence in the northeast region of Syria.
And I believe reports are that they're taking the Syrian oil.
My guess is, my thinking is that one of the reasons that the Assad regime has fallen is because the U .S. is stealing from those people.
Now, Assad is an Alawite, which is kind of a minority group, so his existence really was pretty much dependent upon his ability to compromise and get support of other groups.
So he faced an uphill climb.
So I think that the fact that he held on as long as he has is pretty commendable.
But basically I want you to comment on how the United States played an important role in the demise of Assad.
Yeah, thank you.
Thanks for raising that issue.
You're right, it's an important one to get on the table.
And you're right, there are close to a thousand U .S. troops in that northeast part of Syria, largely working with the Kurds.
I don't think U .S. troops are taking the oil.
I think we've been happy to see the Kurds take the oil so that Assad did not get it.
And so that there could be some degree of effective self -governance up in the north and east of the country where Assad's government really had no ability to provide anything for the population.
So I think that's been the nature of the economy.
So I mostly agree with your point about the importance of those US troops, but I don't think they've been stealing from Assad.
They've been allowing the Kurds to confiscate the resources to run that part of the country.
As to whether Assad was such a good, inclusive leader, you know, there may have been a day where people thought he was the least bad kind of option.
We're good to go.
More than 10 million people displaced, most of them because of the regime.
This has been despicable, and so there's nothing about Assad that merits, I think, any any sadness on our part that he's gone.
We should be nervous about what comes next, but he himself turned into a monster, and the only reason he stayed in power so long was because Hezbollah, as well as Iran and Russia, helped him do so.
It wasn't because he sustained this notion that he was inclusive and benign.
I think We're good to go.
I think?
to make sure they're fair to the minority groups that now are going to be at their mercy so to speak and i'll just we'll put on the screen uh kind of a timeline of u .s involvement in uh syria so we get an idea this uh september of 2014 was the first u .s military intervention in syria with airstrikes against the islamic state it was late 2015 that the first american ground troops entered syria It was initially 50, grew to about 2 ,000.
Their goal to help Kurdish fighters defeat the Islamic State.
December 2018, Trump announces his intention to withdraw troops from Syria, but the plan softened within a year.
This is actually when Defense Secretary Jim Mattis resigned in protest.
And today, as we mentioned, about 900 troops are still in the country.
Michael Hanlon, what do you see as the United States top priority militarily in Syria?
Thanks, Mimi.
And that's a good timeline.
But if I could, I would add one piece to it, which comes before 2014, which is that we started to look for ways to support opposition groups who were rising up in insurrection against President Assad.
But we were very, very restrained in how we did that.
President Obama thought it might be better to keep American hands largely out of the mess and maybe We're good to go.
I think?
To the rebels but never really delivered, and that's part of why they stayed in such disarray.
Probably several dozen at least, rebel groups formed up in those periods and didn't do a very good job coordinating or cooperating with each other.
That's part of why Assad could fend them off.
So, in terms of our priorities now, excuse me, number one priority has to be, I think, to prevent Iran from re -establishing connections to Hezbollah in Lebanon, that land bridge.
And right up there with that priority, of course, is making sure that an ISIS or Al -Qaeda friendly government does not take hold in Damascus and wind up being extremist in behavior.
You know, if we got another government like the Taliban in Afghanistan, that would be too bad for the people of Syria.
But so far, the Taliban in Afghanistan don't seem intent on cooperating with Al -Qaeda and carrying out terrorist strikes against the United States.
And so maybe we've reached a live and let live.
Thank you.
We're good to go.
Good morning, Mr. O 'Hanlon.
How are you?
Fine, thank you.
How about yourself?
Oh, I'm doing good.
Hey, I was wondering, with what's happening in Gaza and Lebanon and Syria, can you tell the American...
Well, I think I know where you're coming from, and I will say this, that I understand after the unbelievable tragedy of October 7.
We're good to go.
I think?
That's been at the heart of US policy for a generation, going back to the first President Bush, actually going back to 1948 and the creation of Israel.
But it's not been something that Prime Minister Netanyahu has pursued with any kind.