The peaceful protests that first challenged Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria are ancient history. Today, the country is sinking into a brutal civil war. Assad is almost certain to lose, but the conflict will consume many more lives.
Meanwhile, Washington hopes to stabilize the nation once Assad disappears into history’s great dustbin. However, this task has been complicated by the rebels’ increasing brutality. Civil wars are notoriously hard to contain. Already, reported the International Crisis Group, “Large numbers of regime sympathizers and opponents have been killed.” And last week, CNN obtained more videos of anti-Assad forces staging brutal executions of their opponents.
While the regime so far remains to blame for most civilian deaths—it possesses both capability (heavy armament) and will (to resist peaceful or violent change)—the longer the fighting goes on, the more divided the equities are likely to become. Warned ICG: “Over the course of this prolonged struggle, what initially were promising expressions of social solidarity increasingly have been soiled, as the conflict successively unearthed, worsened and became mired in the country’s numerous divides and fault lines.”
Indeed, fear has driven many of Syria’s minorities to back Assad, an Alawite, whose Shia-related faith is seen as heretical by many Sunnis.
Unsurprisingly, Assad’s coreligionists perceive themselves at greatest risk and form the core of the regime’s support. Although they often have exaggerated sectarian threats, the danger is rising. Some rebel forces have rejected Alawites as recruits and targeted Alawite civilians.
For similar reasons, Christians and Kurds also have been more likely to either aid the regime or remain neutral. The defense minister killed by the recent Damascus terrorist bombing was a Christian. Although claims of violent persecution have been disputed, there is evidence that the resistance has targeted Christians. Moreover, the rising influence of jihadists and Al Qaeda among the rebels offers a frightening portent for the future.
Reported the New York Times: “The evidence is mounting that Syria has become a magnet for Sunni extremists, including those operating under the banner of al-Qaeda. An important border crossing with Turkey that fell into Syrian rebels’ hands [in mid-July], Bab al-Hawa, has quickly become a jihadist congregating point.” An increasing number of radicals appear to fight with the Free Syrian Army but for Al Qaeda. Christians look across the border to Iraq and see the disastrous consequences of another celebrated “liberation” from a secular dictator.
As casualties mount, pressure rises on both sides to battle more fiercely. At some point, surrender or coexistence will be seen as impossible. ICG pointed to “the same desperate thirst for revenge, the same determination to fight to the end” on both sides.
The latest rebel atrocities augur a brutal future. The Wall Street Journal reported on the wide circulation of “grisly video images” of the summary execution of at least twenty members of the prominent al-Barre family in Aleppo, which has ties to the Assad regime. The men apparently were captured as rebels overran their neighborhood. Several appeared to have been beaten. All were lined up against a wall and shot with machine guns. Explained Abdul-Jabbar al-Ughaidi, commander of the Free Syrian Army in Aleppo: “The time was convenient to do away with them.” The videos collected many expressions of online support.
Ironically, these actions came after members of the opposition concocted fake atrocities to create what Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com called “another ‘Benghazi moment’—an incident so horrific that it would spark Western military intervention.” The practice is common. Perhaps the most celebrated modern instance is British propaganda about German conduct in World War I—the bayoneting of babies and rape of nuns, for instance, which never occurred. The Kuwaiti government in 1990 and Kosovo rebels in 1999 made similar claims, even though the egregious misconduct of the Iraqi and Yugoslav militaries was obvious without lying.
In July, Syrian rebels exaggerated their losses in the village of Tremseh to create the illusion of a massacre. The New York Times concluded that “the evidence available suggested that events on Thursday more closely followed the Syrian government account.” In May, the opposition promoted allegations of a massacre in the town of Houla with a photo of corpses taken in Iraq in 2003.
Atrocities both true and false should surprise no one. The consequences of civil wars and revolutionary conflicts—which often become civil wars—are rarely genteel. Even America’s revolution resulted in an exodus of Loyalists. The French Revolution turned into something far worse. The most notable twentieth-century revolutionary conflicts—in Russia, Spain and China—tore apart societies and engulfed neighboring peoples. In the multiple Yugoslav civil wars, victories by Croats and Kosovars led to the widespread killing and mass ethnic cleansing of Serbs. The ultimate humanitarian consequences of the Iraqi and Libyan wars remain to be seen.
Syria is looking similarly ugly. Rami Abdulrahman, head of the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, observed: “Next time maybe more than 100 people killed. By anybody, the government or the rebels.”
Comments
It is unfortunate that decision-makers and policymakers are so hung on whether or not to provide the opposition to Syrian regime with lethal aid that they’ve stopped to think outside the box.Albert Einstein defined insanity as: “doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” America toppled Saddam Hussein but Iraqis were not that grateful. The same goes for Afghanistan, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, and Libya. Most notably are the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during soviet occupation. We all know how that ended up. Arming the rebels will only usher Syria in another era of conflict. Massacres will continue. There is a reason why non-Sunni Muslims and Kurds are mistrustful of the opposition and have not joined them. The pace of casualties will increase: So much for the moral argument.Why is it so hard to understand the true nature of the conflict in Syria? This misunderstanding is leading to erroneous conclusions based on a flawed framework of analysis and mirror-imaging.There is an intra-Islamic war, a sectarian, fundamentalist Sunni vs. fundamentalist Shiite war that is going on in the ME. Syria is one of the fronts.Shiites are a minority in the Muslim world and Sunnis are the majority. If Assad falls the Shiite (being a minority—approximately one sixth of Muslims controlling 3-4 states out of 56 Muslim states) will lose. Sunnis (majority) will gain and band-wagoning rather than balancing will be the result. Then, a ring of Sunni Muslim brotherhood (Egypt, Ghaza, Syria, possibly in the future Jordan also) with very close ties to Turkey will be the new geopolitical reality in the Middle East. This jeopardizes the safety of non-Sunni Muslim Arabs in the region. That also jeopardizes vital US interests. Therefore, maintaining the Sunni-Shiite balance is vital. Only then, can America maintain the ability to shape events in the ME.American presence in the ME once the “Shiite dilution to Islam” and the threat it represents is over will seriously be jeopardized. GCC monarchs will not have many reasons to maintain US presence in this strategic area at the expense of their population’s objection. Then, America will be forced to look after it interests in much more hostile environments and without the levers it had to garner regional support. Where as if the balance is maintained each party will need external support against the other and that will give ample room for the best positioned power to interfere, ie the USA.Inside Syria, Alewites, Christians, and Druz are supporting Assad because their existence will be threatened under his opponents. They know this as they have been living in these areas for centuries and were subjected to various kinds of discrimination and were treated as inferiors by the majority. They do not buy the talks of a democratic Syria because they know better than westerners. The Kurds are unrecognized and prosecuted by the successive regimes in Syria. The opposition (SNC) also, so far, marginalizes the Kurds and sidelines them. So, a successful strategy must focus on making the groups that support Bashar Al-Assad feel safe to stop supporting the status quo and accept change. Therefore, self-determination must be a pillar of any strategy dealing with the revolutions in the ME in general and in Syria in particular given Syria’s diversity if, long term stability is what we seek.Therefore, to provide a better future for Syrians, to maintain American influence, and to promote meaningful pluralism in Syria: The Kurds must be recognized and given an autonomous region. Then, at least a group of Syrians is emancipated and that is an improvement. The Alewites must also have an autonomous region. That will alleviate Alewite concerns and reassure them. This should mitigate the Alewites’ fears and ease their existential concerns. Other minorities, judging by where they stand today, will chose to live with the Alewites. Both alewites and kurds could be allies of the US and, they could even be allies of Israel to balance against their newly found enemies. This will also keep Syrians occupied and, will prevent them from stirring problems. The only hope for a soft landing and lasting peace is: A Syrian Union and the right of Self-determination granted to Syria’s components. This must be the US administration’s strategy. Otherwise fundamentalist regimes will form the new geopolitical reality in the ME and it would be very difficult to check, contain, and balance against emerging hostile regimes in the ME.