Scott Peterson/The Christian Science Monitor/Getty Images
An ancient doorway is damaged from government air and artillery bombardment in Aleppo, Syria, in October. Some rebels in Aleppo say they hope Mitt Romney will be elected US president Tuesday, as they believe he will be more likely to intervene militarily in Syria.

Syrian rebels root for Romney in hopes of US military intervention

Desperate for foreign intervention, some rebels say they hope the party that brought on the Iraq war might also bring America to Syria.

Seldom do you find Arabs anywhere in the Middle East who have warm feelings about America’s most recent war with Iraq, especially in Syria where many people were actively involved in supporting the Iraqi insurgency.

Yet as Syria’s upheaval nears the two-year mark, many of those who are increasingly desperate for a foreign intervention to end the conflict now reference Iraq as a seemingly positive example of why America might decide to help. With an eye on the US elections, they say they hope the party that brought them the Iraq war might also bring America to Syria.

The Republicans prefer using the military. Like Bush, he entered Iraq and Afghanistan. They use the military in all cases so maybe they will try to intervene here,” says Mustafa Abu Abdu, who used to be a psychology student before the war. “Obama will keep saying that [President Bashar] Assad must stop and that America is sorry about civilian deaths, but he will not do anything to help here.”

A number of Syrians like Mr. Abdu say they hope Tuesday’s election in America will bring Mitt Romney into the Oval Office because they say he is more likely to change the US policy in favor an intervention in Syria.

Though Romney is an unlikely candidate for long time enemies of Israel to favor – he maintains close ties to Israel and promised to move the US embassy to Jerusalem – the potential for him to take military action in Syria trumps any other controversial stances he has for many Syrians.

“Obama has had almost two years to help here. What more can he do?” says Abdul Kareem Islami, a tile shop owner in Aleppo. “Obama didn't help us so maybe Romney will be better.”

Romney has said the US should help to organize the resistance and work with allies to supply arms to those fighting President Bashar al-Assad who share "our interests and values," according to his website. However, he seemed to rule out any US military intervention in the final debate on foreign policy. 

"[S]eeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us," Romney said, but added that "we don’t want to have military involvement there. We don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict."

Disillusionment with Obama

Many Syrians had hoped that under Obama’s leadership the US would do more to help turn the tide in their struggle against President Assad. Shortly after taking office, Obama was seen throughout the region as a long-desired shift in American policy in the region. Obama’s middle name and youth spent in Muslim-majority Indonesia – which many Obama critics in the US seize upon – are seen as a positive in Syria.

During the past two years in Syria, however, Obama has done little to please those struggling to overthrow Assad's government. While Obama has condemned Assad’s brutal crackdown and called on him to leave office, he’s stopped short of offering any direct military assistance, particularly something to help rebels counter Assad’s air force.

“We know how Obama deals with us so we hope Romney will be different,” says Zakarai Hassan Eshowi, an FSA fighter who was a painter before the war. “If Obama wins it will just stay the same. Nothing will change with Obama.”

Still, there are many others who say that American policy is unlikely to change whoever wins on Tuesday.

“I don't think it will make a difference who is president. We don't care who is the president. If it is Obama or Romney, he will be like Assad just following orders,” says Mahmoud Nadoum, a Free Syrian Army commander in Aleppo. “The US president is just implementing a policy.”

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Syrian rebels root for Romney in hopes of US military intervention
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today