Things are getting uglier in Syria

After four days of marathon negotiations, the different Syrian opposition groups have finally agreed to form a united front against President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. A moderate Islamic cleric, Maath al-Khatib, has been elected president of the coalition. This is a minor achievement for Qatar and the United States, which, along with many others, have been pushing the fragmented Syrian opposition to get its acts together. One wonders, however, if this is a tad too late.

When the Arab Spring began in Tunisia last year, the international community anticipated an awesome Arab version of the velvet revolutions of the late 1980s. The turn of events, however, proved to be a disappointing regression from good to ugly: The protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, while relatively peaceful, took longer than usual, with the military and, eventually, the Islamist hi-jacking the gains of the revolution. The protests in Libya, on the other hand, resulted in a bloody civil war that almost left the country in tatters. Syria, so far, has been the ugliest episode: Almost two years after the initial pro-democracy protests, the country is still in a protracted civil war, at times threatening to explode into a wider, regional conflict.

There’s one important difference between Libya and Syria. The erstwhile autocratic regime in Tripoli had generally been isolated, which made it easy to mobilize international support for an American-led multilateral intervention in support of the Libyan uprising. In contrast, Syria sits at an important geopolitical crossroads, and how things end in Damascus would affect the interests of major regional powers like, among others, Iran, Turkey, and Russia.

President Assad’s regime is a reliable ally of the Iranian theocracy. Despite his Arab nationalism, the Syrian dictator’s father had sided with Tehran in the Iran-Iraq War, and Damascus has been helping the Iranians smuggle arms to their Hezbollah proxies in Lebanon. In return, the ayatollahs in Tehran are lending their all-out support to the embattled Assad regime, thereby fueling the Syrian armed forces, which the dictator has unleashed on his own people. Undoubtedly, the ayatollahs see the Syrian uprising as a proxy war between the Islamic Republic and the Israeli-American axis.

Turkey’s interest, on the other hand, is to preserve Syrian stability. Syria’s unraveling could complicate Ankara’s main source of insecurity, the Kurdish insurrection in the Turkish south. Ankara fears that a power vacuum in Damascus could lead to the creation of an autonomous Kurdish entity in the Syrian north, which could in turn coalesce with the Kurdish nationalists in Iraq. This could embolden the Iraqi Kurdistan to secede from the currently very weak Iraqi state, absorb the Syrian Kurds, and eventually form a Greater Kurdistan, which would of course be an existential threat to Turkey’s territorial integrity.

Taking his “zero-problems” (with Turkey’s neighbors) policy to heart, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had pursued friendly ties with President Assad in the last few years. It was Ankara’s overtures that revived President Assad’s international legitimacy, which had been greatly diminished by the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005. When massive pro-democracy protests broke out last year, Ankara initially supported President Assad, but eventually changed course when his regime embarked on a bloody crackdown. Prime Minister Erdogan has since realized that supporting the Syrian dictator would cost Turkey the political capital that he has been patiently cultivating in the Middle East. Turkey is now among those supporting the Syrian opposition, although it’s apparently bent on managing the pace of the civil war.

As for Russia, it maintains its only overseas military base in Syria, and would naturally have the incentive to oppose, or water down, any anti-Assad resolution in the United Nations Security Council. This makes any multilateral intervention difficult, since the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has repeatedly ruled out imposing a similar aerial embargo that it had imposed on Libya last year, unless the United Nations endorses it.

Meanwhile, the Syrian opposition had been hopelessly fragmented. The Turkey-based Syrian National Council tried to pose as the representative of the Syrian opposition in the international community, but its leaders have been living in exile for years and are arguably out of touch with what’s happening on the ground. As a result, Al Qaeda-linked Islamic extremist groups has stepped in to fill the vacuum in the Syrian opposition, raising alarm bells among many observers.

Jabhat al-Nusra, a jihadist group composed of Syrian extremists and mujaheddins from all over the Muslim world, has been leading the charges against President Assad’s forces, according to reports by the Washington Post. The core of this group is said to be President Assad’s own Frankenstein: Syria has cultivated an Islamist terrorist network that Damascus unleashed on American and Israeli interests in the Middle East and the anti-Syria political opposition in Lebanon; and now, these same Sunni terrorists are going after the Assad regime, which, for them, represents Shiite heresy.

Allegedly supported by leading Arab powers like Saudi Arabia, Al Nusra has reportedly recruited an impressive corps of multinational fighters. The last time mujaheddins of different nationalities have been seen fighting together was during the American-supported Islamist resistance against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the late 1980s. And as the secular Free Syrian Army suffers from declining ammunition due to lack of Western support, many opposition fighters have desperately turned to Al Nusra, giving the jihadists a significant amount of popular support.

It’s in this context that the United States, the European Union, Qatar, and Turkey have pressured Syrian opposition groups to get their acts together. And now that they finally have, the ball has returned to these Western powers’ court; they must now act decisively. The prospect of an Al Qaeda-linked terrorist regime taking over Damascus and its massive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons has infinitely raised the stakes.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Things are getting uglier in Syria”

  1. Difficult to take sides when you don’t really know who are the good guys and the bad guys and all that one can base one’s judgment on comes from sources whose motives are unclear.
    I guess my point is we get our information from the western press so there is danger of seeing the Syrian conflict through their eyes.

    There is also some media manipulation being done by the rebels. I read the account of a journalist who realized, luckily in time, that the rebels who were supposed to escort his group to a conflict area were actually setting them up for an ambush to make the government forces look bad.

    Then there was that video of rebels executing prisoners. Who knows if the so-called executioners were really rebels or if they were government forces disguised as rebels or if they were from one rebel group trying to discredit a rival rebel group?

    I don’t know who or what to believe in the Syria story. Syria’s friends are also its enemies. It all depends on whether the issue is over Israel or Shia vs Sunni or some other interest. The only thing I’m sure of is all the actors are pursuing their own selfish interests, innocent Syrians be damned.

    I guess the question is do you just let the Syrians sort their problems out by themselves or do you impose peace on them? If it’s the latter then who can be trusted to do it? The UN comes to mind but then again you know how the UN Security Council works so a UN imposed peace does not necessarily mean that it’s an impartial peace. Now if you have the US, EU, Qatar and Turkey getting together then what happens to Russia, Iran, Al Qaeda and everybody else? Are they just going to take the “coalition” lying down?

    What to do, lah?

  2. Well, you’re right; from the point of view of the different powers involved, I think who the good guys and the bad guys are are less relevant than who would better serve their interest. An Assad regime would serve Russian and Iranian interests, while Turkey, Israel, the US and their allies want a stable and friendly post-Assad government, preferably one that’s democratic.

    Obviously, the Obama administration initially thought it better to just let the Syrians sort their problems out by themselves, but the entry of Al Qaeda is a game-changer. At first, people thought this was just an Assad concoction aimed at framing the civil war as a battle between him and the extremists. But more and more reports of these extremist taking charges against Assad are coming out, and it’s becoming untenable to simply dismiss the potential dangers.

    Getting the opposition to get their acts together is the step in the right direction, although they could have done that a lot earlier. But, you’re right, what happens next? Who would mediate? The UN is out of the question, and a Western-led coalition would be opposed by Iran and, probably, by Russia (unless the Syrian opposition works out a deal with Kremlin that would keep the former Soviet base intact). But then again, what could Iran do? Pocket resistance from Al Qaeda would arguably be better than letting an extremist government take over Damascus.

    I think what the US should do is to mobilize the Arab League and get them to offer concrete support for the rebels. These rebels are probably bad guys too, but they’re the lesser evil at the moment. Pressure the Saudis into cutting support for Al Nusra (goodluck with that), negotiate a deal with Russia, get the EU and Turkey on board, and support the new opposition coalition. This is a very difficult task, but I don’t think there are other choices.

  3. One clear factor supporting more defined U.S. engagement is that the elections are over. Obama can be a little bolder. Maybe along the lines of your last paragraph in responding to MB. Mobilizing the Arab League. The CIA is busy fumbling with its zipper, so . . .

      1. I think the plot was written by Tom Clancy and spies abound. I have very mixed feelings about the FBI investigating the CIA, checking e-mails, the social scene operated by the third woman and her husband, evidently high-flying debtors, the jealous hard-bodied “broad” going nuts, and in the middle, the stoic, honorable, patriotic general. Maybe two generals. I mostly just sigh and turn away.

        Unfortunately, then I run smack into the quabble over Ambassador Rice as a potential Secretary of State nominee, and Libya and Watergate, and, wow. I sigh and turn away.

        It is more fun in the Philippines where I am less confused about who is on first, who is good, who is bad.

        In other words, I don’t know enough about it to hold an intelligent opinion.

        1. I have an American colleague whose twin brother is, I believe, a colonel in the US Army and he says the FBI investigating officers and their family is standard operating procedure. I think the logic is that the FBI should know who among the officers are vulnerable to blackmails and stuff. National security thing, he says, and is probably done in almost all countries as well.

          Ambassador Rice reminds me of Secretary Albright, but I’m not so sure about her prospects anymore. That Benghazi episode torpedoed her chances of gaining the nod of Republican senators. Senator Kerry, I heard, is another likely candidate. He’ll probably make a good Secretary of State, but his removal could endanger the Democratic Party’s thin Senate majority. Perhaps National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon would make the cut?

          About General Petreaus, well, I don’t know, I just think his private affairs are irrelevant. But I could be wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s