For decades, the Syrian people have shouldered the financial burden of maintaining a military and its armaments, with little to show for it. The military’s inability to defend the country against Israel is a stark reminder of this failed policy. Instead, the armament strategy has had devastating consequences for the Syrian people.
On one hand, funding for the military has been diverted from the livelihoods of the impoverished, stifling developmental ambitions and straining industrial, agricultural, and commercial sectors. On the other hand, these weapons, financed by the people, have been turned against them with brutal force by a government that was supposed to protect them.
The logic of building a military to counter a specific enemy requires that the force be equivalent in strength or capable of deterring aggression. Without this parity, the endeavor becomes futile and self-destructive. Furthermore, relying on a stable ally for weapons procurement is crucial to ensure a reliable supply chain. Syria’s dependence on Russia has had disastrous consequences, with Moscow controlling Syria’s military policies and using the country as a testing ground for advanced weaponry.
With most of Syria’s arsenal destroyed by Israeli forces, Russia is no longer a necessary arms supplier. Syrians now face a critical decision: should they rebuild an army to confront Israel, and at what cost? Can a population largely living below the poverty line afford to sacrifice more basic needs to fund an armament program?
Some nations have successfully abandoned militarization in favor of development. Japan, for instance, adopted a pacifist constitution in 1947, prohibiting offensive military forces and emphasizing dispute resolution through peaceful means (Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution). Japan established a National Defense Force (JSDF) and became a global manufacturing leader and one of the world’s largest economies.
Similarly, Costa Rica, Panama, and Iceland have prioritized stability and development over militarization. Switzerland, while maintaining a unique approach, avoids the arms race by relying on reserves, neutrality, and non-involvement in military conflicts or alliances. These examples demonstrate that innovative solutions can be tailored to address Syria’s unique challenges. International laws, alliances, and treaties can be developed to protect weaker states from external threats.
The New Syrian Era: A Daunting Legacy
Syria faces a colossal legacy of destruction, with estimated reconstruction costs exceeding $500 billion. Securing these funds without significant international support is unlikely. However, financing an ill-equipped army is not a viable option. Considering Israel’s substantial military expenditure, exceeding $27 billion in 2023, pursuing an arms race would be futile and further entrench Syria’s people in poverty.
Embracing a demilitarized Syria may be challenging, particularly for nationalists and those adhering to the doctrine of resistance. However, the alternative – relentless militarization – would devastate Syria’s already strained resources.
As scientific and ethical advancements continue to evolve, will they bolster peaceful trends and foster a more harmonious world? Can humanity embrace a future where wisdom and justice prevail over the destructive forces of war? These questions inspire contemplation and hopeful aspirations for a better future – one where reason triumphs over gunfire.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
