FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Winners and Losers in the Syrian Civil War

shutterstock_327353603

The Syrian peace talks between government and opposition will begin in the next few days in Geneva in an atmosphere of almost undiluted gloom about the prospects for success. The two sides hate each other and have spent five years trying to kill each other, making it unlikely that they will agree to share power in any way except geographically, with each side keeping the territory it currently holds and defending it with its own armed forces.

This pessimism is difficult to contradict, given that several of the most powerful groups doing the shooting will not be present in Geneva. Neither Isis nor the al-Nusra Front are invited, not that it was ever likely that they would turn up even if they were. There are disputes about who exactly is a terrorist, with Saudi Arabia pushing the Army of Islam that controls the rebel stronghold on the eastern side of Damascus and Turkey insisting on the exclusion of the Syrian Kurds, America’s most effective ally against Isis.

The problem about ending the war in Syria and Iraq is that there is a multitude of players who are too strong to lose but too weak to win. Countries and movements such as Iran and Hezbollah see themselves as fighting for their very existence in a war they cannot afford to lose. Others, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey have invested too much credibility in the struggle for Syria to admit they are not going to achieve their aim of ousting President Bashar al-Assad.

Wars sometimes end by exhaustion rather than agreement, and that may be the best that can be expected for Syria. Local ceasefires and armed truces would be put in place, like the 600 or more that periodically interrupted the 15-year civil war in Lebanon. The difficulty here is that cult-like movements such as Isis and  al-Nusra exist to fight for and live up to their Islamic faith by fighting what they see as demonic enemies. They are not like the Lebanese warlords who used to occasionally find it in their mutual interests to stop trying to kill each other.

But, while we may not see many  positives emerge from the talks in Geneva, the political landscape in the region is a little more conducive to peace than previously. The Russian military intervention four months ago means that Assad is not going to lose, though he is unlikely to win decisively. He remains in power but only because of the increased support from Iran, Russia and Hezbollah in Lebanon and, even with their backing, his army has not recaptured cities he lost last year, such as Palmyra and Idlib. President Assad may not want to talk in Geneva, or subsequently, but he is more than ever dependent on these external allies who do not want to be mired in an endless Syrian civil war.

Winners and losers are beginning to emerge in Syria, though not all of those involved can see this. Isis is looking increasingly battered by a medley of enemies backed by the US and Russian air forces, though it is nowhere near defeat. The US keeps trumpeting its loss of Ramadi, in Iraq, but the Iraqi special forces that took over the ruined city number only about 500 soldiers. The Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga who recaptured Sinjar have not been paid for five months, because the Kurdistan Regional Government is bankrupt. The Syrian army is short of men and, while its morale may be higher thanks to the Russians, it is still exhausted by five years of war. The Syrian Kurds are successful, but averse to being used as cannon fodder by the US and they are nervous of Turkish intervention.

It is dangerous to describe any single phase of a long-running civil war as being decisive, but the coming months could be just that. The US and its allies in Syria, primarily the 25,000 fighters of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) with some Sunni Arab allies, are eager to cut Isis off from its last link, through Turkey, to the outside world. They are not far from achieving this. Arab units of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), an umbrella organisation dominated by the YPG, captured the Tishrin dam on the Euphrates,  55 miles east of Aleppo, on 23 December and are close to the Isis stronghold of Manbij.

The news that a movement few had heard of is threatening an obscure town in Syria was never going to set the world on fire. But it is important for three reasons: first, Isis is now almost sealed off within its self-declared caliphate; second, the Syrian Kurds, using their surrogate, the SDF, have crossed west of the Euphrates despite Turkey’s threats never to let this happen without a military response; third, and most important, the attack of the SDF was supported by both US and Russian air strikes, though not at the same time. “The Russians are now carrying out most of the air strikes there,” said a Syrian Kurdish representative. In other words, the US and Russia in this part of Syria are acting as if they had a de facto military alliance.

The big loser here could be Turkey, which seemed to be in such a strong position to extend its influence across the Middle East in 2011. Its image as an economically prospering, democratic yet Islamic, state was attractive to many Arab protesters looking to overthrow and replace dictatorial rule. But the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, soon made clear that he was supporting a Sunni Arab sectarian takeover that was anti-Shia, anti-Kurd and anti-secular and was bound to be resisted. Having first backed the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey then tolerated or helped Isis, al-Nusra and extreme jihadi groups.

It was a calamitous miscalculation for Syria and for Turkey. For all President Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman dreams of making Turkey a great power in the Middle East again, he has achieved the opposite. How he responds to this failure should become clear in the coming months as the US and Russia try, in different ways, and in support of a rather different list of allies, to close the border between northern Syria and Turkey.

President Erdogan will either have to accept Turkey’s exclusion from northern Syria or increase Turkish military involvement, possibly including an invasion. Critical commentators in Turkey say he wanted to invade last year, but was restrained by senior Turkish army generals. Full-scale military engagement by Turkey would be more difficult today, since Russian military intervention and the shooting down of a Russian bomber by a Turkish F-16 on 24 November. A Turkish move into northern Syria now would face American disapproval and resistance by Russian aircraft and anti-aircraft missiles.

The war in Syria and Iraq is far from over but, as winners and losers emerge, the chances of local ceasefires and, ultimately, some sort of peace will become more feasible. The Assad government and the opposition may not be able to agree in Geneva, but the outside powers which support them are becoming increasingly eager to bring the conflict to an end.

More articles by:

Patrick Cockburn is the author of  The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.

January 16, 2019
Patrick Bond
Jim Yong Kim’s Mixed Messages to the World Bank and the World
John Grant
Joe Biden, Crime Fighter from Hell
Alvaro Huerta
Brief History Notes on Mexican Immigration to the U.S.
Kenneth Surin
A Great Speaker of the UK’s House of Commons
Elizabeth Henderson
Why Sustainable Agriculture Should Support a Green New Deal
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, Bolton and the Syrian Confusion
Jeff Mackler
Trump’s Syria Exit Tweet Provokes Washington Panic
Barbara Nimri Aziz
How Long Can Nepal Blame Others for Its Woes?
Cesar Chelala
Violence Against Women: A Pandemic No Longer Hidden
Kim C. Domenico
To Make a Vineyard of the Curse: Fate, Fatalism and Freedom
Dave Lindorff
Criminalizing BDS Trashes Free Speech & Association
Thomas Knapp
Now More Than Ever, It’s Clear the FBI Must Go
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: The Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Edward Curtin
A Gentrified Little Town Goes to Pot
January 15, 2019
Patrick Cockburn
Refugees Are in the English Channel Because of Western Interventions in the Middle East
Howard Lisnoff
The Faux Political System by the Numbers
Lawrence Davidson
Amos Oz and the Real Israel
John W. Whitehead
Beware the Emergency State
John Laforge
Loudmouths against Nuclear Lawlessness
Myles Hoenig
Labor in the Age of Trump
Jeff Cohen
Mainstream Media Bias on 2020 Democratic Race Already in High Gear
Dean Baker
Will Paying for Kidneys Reduce the Transplant Wait List?
George Ochenski
Trump’s Wall and the Montana Senate’s Theater of the Absurd
Binoy Kampmark
Dances of Disinformation: the Partisan Politics of the Integrity Initiative
Glenn Sacks
On the Picket Lines: Los Angeles Teachers Go On Strike for First Time in 30 Years
Jonah Raskin
Love in a Cold War Climate
Andrew Stewart
The Green New Deal Must be Centered on African American and Indigenous Workers to Differentiate Itself From the Democratic Party
January 14, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Tears of Justin Trudeau
Julia Stein
California Needs a 10-Year Green New Deal
Dean Baker
Declining Birth Rates: Is the US in Danger of Running Out of People?
Robert Fisk
The US Media has Lost One of Its Sanest Voices on Military Matters
Vijay Prashad
5.5 Million Women Build Their Wall
Nicky Reid
Lessons From Rojava
Ted Rall
Here is the Progressive Agenda
Robert Koehler
A Green Future is One Without War
Gary Leupp
The Chickens Come Home to Roost….in Northern Syria
Glenn Sacks
LA Teachers’ Strike: “The Country Is Watching”
Sam Gordon
Who Are Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists?
Weekend Edition
January 11, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Richard Moser
Neoliberalism: Free Market Fundamentalism or Corporate Power?
Paul Street
Bordering on Fascism: Scholars Reflect on Dangerous Times
Joseph Majerle III – Matthew Stevenson
Who or What Brought Down Dag Hammarskjöld?
Jeffrey St. Clair - Joshua Frank
How Tre Arrow Became America’s Most Wanted Environmental “Terrorist”
Andrew Levine
Dealbreakers: The Democrats, Trump and His Wall
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Que Syria, Syria
Dave Lindorff
A Potentially Tectonic Event Shakes up the Mumia Abu-Jamal Case
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail