In the last couple weeks, two important developments have arisen in the ever-evolving Syrian Civil War. First, the ridiculous cease-fire organized by the United States and Russia has broken down. This is not a big deal, as no one paid much attention to the cease-fire anyway. However, the second development is more important; that of Russia’s deployment of an advanced anti-missile system to Syria. This is clearly a move against the United States by the Russian government. Russia is very quickly supplanting the U.S. as the dominant superpower player in Syria. The U.S. needs to re-evaluate both its position and strategies in the Syrian conflict, and right quick.
This is certainly easier said than done. There are a lot of players involved and the U.S. could take several different routes in handling the conflict. Let’s forget the impending change in White House leadership for a moment and think outside the box about U.S. options in the region. Let’s also pretend the U.S. will act like the hegemon it could be if it allowed itself, and not taken any option off the table. Several options will be numbered below, though they are in no particularly important order.
Option 1) Support only the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).
The U.S. could choose to support the various weakened rebel groups that once constituted the FSA. This seemed to be the overall popular choice made by the Obama administration at the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. The administration saw a chance of replacing the tyrannical rule of Bashar al-Assad with a more moderate ruling force in the region. This approach was benign, but extremely naive. Not to mention the support was weak from the get go.
There are two problems with supporting the allegedly moderate anti-government forces. First, these rebel forces have been found to be extremely unorganized and disunified. The FSA does not exist in any significant form any more and it was never that strong to begin with. Second, the so-called moderate FSA was made up of various rebel groups consisting of Islamic extremist fighters. The FSA received funding from the U.S. in 2013 but no one really knows who benefited from this support. It is possible the more extreme groups within FSA received some of those funds. Al-Nusra Front is the largest off-shoot of the FSA groups and it is internationally recognized as an Islamic Terrorist organization.
The FSA is the perfect embodiment of the chaotic, unreliable, and tribal nature of politics within the Middle East. Moderate groups do not last long among a tribal culture, as can be seen by the fate of the FSA. President Obama’s move to support the FSA is an example of Western culture’s lack of understanding of Middle Eastern culture and how to deal with it. This will be discussed later. For now, we can conclude that the loose support FSA received from the U.S. has failed to do any good for either them, or the U.S.
Option 2) Support the Assad regime.
This is a strategy likely to be rejected by most Americans because they do not want the U.S. to be associated with supporting a tyrannical government. This reasoning by itself is stupid, as the U.S. has supported the tyrannical government of Saudi Arabia for decades. If you reject support of Assad on this premise alone, you better re-evaluate the U.S. relationship with multiple other governments.
Supporting Assad might not be a bad idea. The history of the modern Middle East is a history of struggle to maintain stability against extremist forces. Dictators are the ruthless necessity to maintain peace in a land with few resources and a lot of religious extremists. Post Saddam Hussein Iraq is the perfect example of this. Hussein, though despicable as a human being, was effective at crushing opposition and keeping his country relatively free of Islamic extremists. The region was considerably more stable before his removal from power. His ruthlessness is what provided stability.
The destabilization of Iraq has led directly to the instability in Syria. Had Iraq not been unstable, Assad would likely have crushed the Arab Spring in Syria and resulting rebel fighters relatively quickly. There would have been no power vacuum in either nation to be filled by extremist groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or Al-Nusra Front (effectively Al-Qaeda in Syria). Syrians would not be as free, but Europe and the United States would be a lot more secure. This should be the end goal anyway; let Syrians fix their own country.
Option 3) Do nothing
This is probably the worst option altogether. It may save American lives up front, by preventing front line military casualties. However, it is almost guaranteed to lead to the loss of Western civilian lives in the long run. Doing nothing will likely mean continuing civil war for years within Syria. This will translate to a greater threat of terrorist attacks on the West by radical Islamic terrorists who will flourish in a war torn Syria. Afghanistan is example of how war torn nations are perfect bases for terrorist training camps and supply lines.
Leaving Syria will also send a bad message internationally; that the U.S. is willing to leave the field to Russia. Syria has become an important battleground between Russia and the U.S. for establishing dominance on a global scale. This is a battle the U.S. is currently losing, as evidenced by the widespread disregard for U.S. Naval ships in the region by Russia and their ally Iran. The U.S. can still easily come out ahead if we play our cards right. Doing nothing is not a card that should be played.
Option 4) Support the Kurds and the division of Syria along ethnic/religious lines.
Let’s face it; Kurdistan is the closest thing to a shining star of success the U.S. has had in Iraq. It is true the Kurds have their own struggles, but overall Kurdistan in Iraq has seen relative success following the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The Peshmerga has also seen success in fighting ISIS and they have always held their own against the Turkish government. If any ethnic group in the world has fought hard for their independence, it is the Kurds.
And as for Turkey…they can go pound sand. If there is any “ally” in the region who has consistently failed to aid the U.S. when it really counted, it is Turkey. Turkey would not allow the U.S. to use their bases for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Turkey continues to support Al-Nusra Front, a branch of Al-Qaeda in the region. The government of Turkey has consistently moved away from secular rule in the past decade. And although Turkey plays host to some nuclear equipment for NATO, they need us more than we need them. The Peshmerga has done more in the battle against ISIS than Turkey ever has.
Let the Kurds and their allies merge Rojava (the de facto autonomous region they control) with Iraqi Kurdistan. Let Israel keep the Golan Heights and split up the remaining territory between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Christians. The downside is that war would likely ensue between any newly formed states. The U.S. should back the Kurds in any resulting conflict, as long as the Kurds do not engage in genocide, terrorism, or anything similarly horrific. Of all the involved parties in the conflict, the Kurds’ politics are most conducive to Western ideals. Their rule is based in secular politics, and includes gender equality and sustainability.
Option 5) Play two sides off against each other.
The U.S. has a tremendous opportunity in Syria to let our enemies bleed each other dry. Hezbollah and ISIS are two of the most far reaching terrorist organizations the U.S. must fight. Luckily for us, they hate each other with a passion; possibly more than they hate Westerners. Both of them are essentially proxies for larger opponents. These opponents are Saudi Arabia/Sunnis versus Iran/Shiites (backed by Russia). Saudi Arabia supports Al-Nusra, which collaborates with ISIS to attack Westerners and Shiites. Iran backs both Hezbollah and the Syrian government under Assad (and the Alawite minority).
The U.S. should play both sides just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war from 1979 to 1989. Let Saudi Arabia and Iran use Syria as a battleground for bleeding each other dry. Russia should also be allowed to pour military and funds into the region, only inasmuch as they make little material gain. The Kurds independence should be supported in this scenario also; they can be used as a wildcard to prevent either Saudi Arabia or Iran from gaining an upper hand. They can also be used as a base for striking at threats posed by any rampant influx of terrorist fighters.
In this option, ISIS should be absolutely crushed before anything. Raqqah should be bombed to the ground and the caliphate exterminated by a combination of special ops and air strikes. No mercy should be shown because they do not show any to us. Destroying ISIS will allow the Saudi Arabian/Turkish backed Al-Nusra to complete their ascension to top dog in the conflict, and thusly allow them to be used as a pawn against Hezbollah.
Such a conflict could be carried on indefinitely. Syria could become a funnel for channelling Radical Islamists on both sides, Sunni and Shiite, to kill each other off. Both sides will be weakened, as will Russia if they continue to support the Shiites against the odds. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been searching for a way to destroy each other for decades. This could be the opportunity to let them do it without jeopardizing the world’s oil reserves.
One could even hope that the Vietnam effect will take place in Iran if the conflict becomes prolonged. Iran already suffers from a lack of support among some 80% of its population, who do not enjoy subjugation by theocratic rule. Such an endless war could weaken the Revolutionary Guard and be the necessary spur the Iranian citizenry needs to throw off their chains. One could hope.
Needless to say, these are not the only options available to the U.S. Indeed, American’s should not be too quick to take any one option off the table. Nor should our allies. The nations of Western Europe are facing a wave of refugees and violence caused directly by the Syrian Civil War. The threat posed by Radical Islamic Terrorism is something all Westerners are facing. The relatively moderate and peaceful nation of Jordan is also threatened by the chaos in Syria. The U.S. may very well find allies among any nation that stands to lose from the violence in the region. However, the U.S. needs to stop dancing around the problem and face it head on; because it is not going away.
~AD
Share This:
