If you think the war in Syria is hard to follow, that’s because there’s
actually three of them—at least. Distinct but interconnected, the
competing web of allegiances and motivations puts al-Qaeda on the same
side as the USA and makes a solution impossible. By SIMON ALLISON.
Many people, like this reporter, find the Syrian war confusing
sometimes. It throws up all kind of strange and unnatural
contradictions, like America appearing to be on the same side as
al-Qaeda-linked jihadists and Al-Jazeera turning into a typical,
propaganda-spouting state media house. No doubt policy-makers also find
it difficult to understand. It’s been nearly two years and there’s still
no sensible international policy on Syria, just a steady stream of
ad-hoc condemnations and hamstrung mediations.
There’s a simple reason for all this confusion and complexity: it’s a
very, very complicated situation. Even worse, there’s not just one war
being fought in Syria, but at least three and possibly even more.
War number one is the one we’re all familiar with (especially if
we’ve been watching too much Al-Jazeera). This is your typical Arab
Spring narrative, pitting a downtrodden civilian population against the
brutal regime that has repressed its people for so long. It’s a simple
tale of good-versus-evil, of democracy taking on dictatorship, of the
people sticking it to the man. We’ve seen variations of the theme in
Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, all of which ended with the people hurling off
the yoke of dictatorship and replacing it with a new, enlightened,
freely-elected government (oh, wait; it hasn’t quite ended like that in
any of these countries, but let’s not spoil a good story with the
facts).
Elements of this story are true in Syria. Certainly, the regime was
brutal and autocratic, happy to stifle political freedoms and
concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a very few, mostly of the
Alawite ethnic minority. In fact, the Syrian security forces had such a
world-class reputation for torture that they were, on occasion,
prevailed upon by American intelligence to practise their craft on
detainees as part America’s extraordinary rendition program.
There was popular dissent, too. Not much of it initially, but it grew
in size and voice in the wake of the uprisings in other Arab countries.
Whether or not the anti-Assad movement was really a majority will be
argued over endlessly in years to come, but it is important to recognise
that just as there was a large anti-Assad sentiment, so there was a
significant chunk of the population that was happy with the status quo;
autocracies are stable and peaceful, after all, unlike revolutions and
civil wars.
War number two is not really about Syria at all. Instead, it’s about
Middle Eastern and global geopolitics, and it’s very messy. In one
corner is the Syrian Alawite regime and Iran, who are natural allies.
The Alawites are a sect of Shi’a Islam, while Iran is an explicitly
Shi’a state (as opposed to Sunni Islam, the other main branch of the
religion). Russia finds itself in this camp too, desperate to protect
its vital naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus—its only reliable warm
water port. So too does China, which sees no reason to put its
excellent trading relationship with Syria in jeopardy.
Ranged against this formidable combination is a regional alliance of
Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, all of which would love to see Bashar
al-Assad replaced with a more compliant Sunni leader. All have designs
on regional leadership, and in Syria they find common cause. Turkey was
one of the first countries to express support for the Syrian rebels,
while both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have helped to fund and arm them.
Qatar has also been accused – with some justification –
of using its hugely influential satellite TV channel, Al-Jazeera
(specifically the Arabic version) to influence public opinion by
portraying a one-sided version of events.
Lurking behind this regional triumvirate is the United States and the
Western world, their foreign policy distorted, as usual, by their
Iranian paranoia. Robert Fisk, doyen of Middle East correspondents,
summed up their approach in the Independent: “This is an attempt to
crush the Syrian dictatorship not because of our love for Syrians or our
hatred of our former friend Bashar al-Assad, or because of our outrage
at Russia, whose place in the pantheon of hypocrites is clear when we
watch its reaction to all the little Stalingrads across Syria. No, this
is all about Iran and our desire to crush the Islamic Republic and its
infernal nuclear plans—if they exist—and has nothing to do with human
rights or the right to life or the death of Syrian babies.”
Syria, in other words, is a proxy war; a relatively safe place (for
everyone else, not for Syria) to fight the battles that can’t yet be
fought in the open.
But it doesn’t end there. There’s a third war happening. This one
pits the nominally Shi’a (though relatively secular) Syrian state
against the global Sunni jihadist movement (known to Americans as
“terrorists”). A flood of reports recently have explained how fighters
from all over the Arab world, many of them battle-hardened in
Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq, have come to the support of the Syrian
rebels.
This from Ed Husain in the National Review is typical: “Our
collective excitement at the possibility that the Assad regime will be
destroyed, and the Iranian ayatollahs weakened in the process, is
blurring our vision and preventing us from seeing the rise of al-Qaeda
in Syria. In March of this year, jihadis mounted seven attacks against
Assad. By June, they had led 66 “operations”, and over half of these
were on Syria’s capital, Damascus. The Syrian opposition is benefiting
hugely from the terrorist organization’s determination, discipline,
combat experience, religious fervour, and ability to strike the Assad
regime where it hurts most.”
The War on Terror has reached Syria and somehow, America and al-Qaeda
find themselves fighting on the same side. No wonder no one seems to
know what’s really going on.
Nor does anyone know how to stop it. With all these tangled conflicts
and competing interests and motivations, figuring out a solution seems
like an impossible task. Which, so far, is exactly what it’s proven to
be. DM
Source: Daily Maverick
No comments:
Post a Comment