Goodbye Syria

GOODBYE SYRIA

 

The geopolitical situation in Northern Syria last Spring.

in “STRATFOR” at www.stratfor.com

There is a great agitation in the United States defence’ and foreign policy establishments over President Donald Trump’s decision (intention?) to withdraw the remaining 2000 US troops deployed in Syria.

The bogeyman of choice is none other than the Islamic State (IS). Accordingly, the eventual withdrawal would put the IS back in the game, on the rise to power and glory. This, of course, borders on the ridicule. The IS has been severely battered in Syria and Iraq, it is extremely weakened, it lost almost all the territory it controlled, it lost many fighters and has diminished pride and moral. This does not mean it is dead (the total annihilation of the Islamic State down to the last man is not a viable nor an essential outcome), but it lacks the short, medium term ability to pose a relevant military threat.

However, the critics brandish other reasons, such as the fact that, without a military presence on the ground in Syria, the United States cannot rein in Bashar al Assad, nor exercise leverage over the regime. Once again, this is a non-argument. The US has long lost leverage in Syria, but for some regions, which do not include the major cities.

The Syrian government has dug in during the war, managed to prevail (with strong outside assistance) and now faces no imminent threat to its survival. Furthermore, Assad’s position rests on a triple backup besides the Syrian Arab Army: Russia, Iran and the militias, including Hezbollah, provide political and economic support and abundant firepower and face no match in the country.

The major drawback of the withdrawal is North Eastern Syria, controlled by the Syrian Kurdish YDF and where most of the 2000 American troops are based. Turkey has long yearned to wipe out the Syrian Kurdish control over Northern Syria. She has managed to accomplish that in the Afrin area, but the presence of Russia and the United States has prevented her from going further. The prospect of the American departure has left Erdogan salivating. Notwithstanding, the Kurdish position will not necessarily be untenable. They would, (if they have not already done so) seek an opening to Bashar al Assad to reach a compromise under which the territory they control would reintegrate the Arab Republic of Syria, thus being under the aegis of Damascus, but keeping a reasonable modicum of autonomy.

Besides, the YDF has significant combat experience in the Syrian War, are well equipped militarily and would be fighting for its very existence and, possibly, for their people’s survival, so a rough and nasty war is to be expected if it comes down to that.

Another drawback is a minor one and has to do with the containment of Iran. That would be a strategic coup against Teheran, but it is not a viable prospect in the present geopolitical and military context of Syria.

Last Wednesday, the withdrawal opponents apparently got a boost when an American patrol in Syria was ambushed and 4 servicemen were killed by a suicide improvised explosive device. Conclusion drawn: the Islamic State is alive and well. The US must remain in Syria.

This is obviously farfetched. It is not a single (or three, or six) targeted attacks, actually more of a terrorist attack, that will mark the Islamic State’s rebirth. This sort of attacks in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere will be a relatively common feature for a long time, regardless of there being US troops on the ground or not. Actually, using the same logics, one could even say that if the withdrawal had already been completed, no more American soldiers would have perished in combat in Syria. Anyway, this is hardly the point. One does not change the plans for a military deployment or withdrawal contingent on the occurrence of a terrorist attack that leaves four dead, ours or theirs.

Now, what can the American contingent in Syria hope to accomplish?

Not much, besides supporting/protecting the Kurds and containing the Turks.

Will this mean the US has “lost” Syria?

No. It was never hers to lose.

The US has never held any substantial leverage in or over Syria in terms of the reality on the ground and the Americans forfeited that possibility when they ducked an imminent intervention in the Syrian Civil War in September 2013. Russia’s direct military involvement in late 2015 further reduced the chances of that ever happening.

The American left wants the US military presence in Syria in order to press and topple the regime. The American right wants the same, but to frame Iran and assert US military power. Neither is realistically attainable.

So, the United States is facing this situation:

* The Islamic State is severely weakened and devolving from an insurgent organisation back to being a terrorist one.

* The US has little to no leverage in Syria.

* Syria is not and never was, of major strategic importance to the US.

* Syria’s main players are Russia and Iran.

* Donald Trump included in his electoral manifesto the US withdrawal.

So, there is a handful of good reasons for the United States to say goodbye to Syria.

RIP Syria

RIP SYRIA

“RYP SYRIA”

Desenho original de Afonso Duarte

Syria’s War is heading for the 5 year mark. A lot has happened and an imminent outcome has been repeatedly forecast or announced: from Obama’s now infamous “Assad must go” in 2011, to the regime debacle in 2012, to the equally infamous Obama “chemical weapons red line” in 2013, onwards to the regime’s onslaught of the rebels in 2014 and back to the regime’s demise in the Summer of 2015 and now to the regime’s comeback on top of the Russian intervention. And yet, the War rolls on. And it goes on, and on.

Actually, since its beginning in 2011, never has the War seemed to be nearing a conclusion. Back in July 2013, Tempos Interessantes published a post titled “Síria: A Guerra Está Para Durar” (Syria: The War Is Going to Last at http://tempos-interessantes.blogspot.pt/2013/07/siria-guerra-esta-para-durar.html ). 27 months later, the War rages on.

The Syrian strategic patchwork in the Summer of 2015.

in STRATFOR at www.stratfor.com

The list of contenders is hard to track. There is the Government, the Islamic State, the Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat Al Nusra, the Free Syrian Army comprising an assortment of so-called moderate factions of which there is a Northern and a Southern variant, the YPD (Kurdish People Protection Units), the Islamist Ahrar Ash-Sham, the Al-Tawhid Brigade, Islamists, Jihadists, moderates, secularists, Sunnis, Shiites, Christians, Alawites, Kurds and many, many others.

Then, there are the foreign players from the Middle East like Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. There are also the great powers like Russia, the USA and, to a lesser extent, France and the UK and some minor players, too. Finally, there are foreign non-state actors such as the Lebanese Hezbollah and several Iraqi Shiite militias like Ketaib Hezbollah and Harakat Hezbollah.

As this were not confusing enough, many of the Syrian rebellious groups have intricate, conflicting and overlapping allegiances, alliances, enmities and hatreds, not to mention interests. This means, for instance, that Jabhat Al Nusra may be cooperating with the Free Syrian Army in one front and fighting it in another one.

This myriad of actors, interests and links, translates into a messy, ever-shifting battlespace in which no single faction seems to be able to secure significant progress that could give it a decisive strategic advantage, susceptible of leading it to a final victory.

Quite the opposite. Like in the I World War from 1915 to 1917, there have been no strategic breakthroughs, only some tactical triumphs, frequently annulled by setbacks in other fronts.

Given the military stalemate and the prevailing political, religious, ethnic and even personal hatred, the Syria War seems to be heading towards a dead-end that could lead to a de facto partition of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In fact, we are facing a dramatic equation:

military stalemate + political dead-end + internal deep antagonism & hate + multi-layered and antagonistic foreign intervention = PARTITION

So, maybe we should be getting prepared, in the not so distant future, to pronounce the gloomy and awkward expression Rest In Peace Syria (RIP SYRIA).

Besides the resistance that some of the powers involved (like the US and Turkey) will put to this outcome, the main obstacle to the “RIP Syria” concept is the word “Peace”. Syria may be in her death throes, or even dead. She is, however, unlikely to Rest In Peace anytime soon.