(War on Terror) - Why the West should take back its jihadists

    

The global war on terror has been a costly one… Since 9/11 thousands of innocent lives were lost to a variety of attacks in major cities across the world, using tactics that until then defied belief and made many people worry about their safety in general.  Airliners, cars and lorries became weapons of war, people enjoying a night out were attacked in bars, streets, restaurants, beaches and even concert halls became legitimate targets for terror attacks…

Governments were quick to enact new laws that gave intelligence  agencies and police forces more leeway and resources to go after possible suspects and stronger, more reliable information sharing networks were established to help avoid new attacks… We went to war against terror groups in parts of the world they called their own and in some places were more successful in driving them out than others. We have lost thousands of servicemen, security and intelligence agents… and the war is not over. When one region is stabilized, another becomes a hotspot.

The current war on terror has changed, and will continue to change the mindset of the public as the war that once was fought on the other side of the world, has come to our own shores. The rise of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq saw an unprecedented amount of foreign fighters travelling to the region to become citizens there, take up arms and fight against any nation that threatened it. Even from the West thousands of youngsters and entire families set off to join one of the groups in the region.

Rambo jihadism?

Although a portion of these westerners returned as soon as they realized that the reality wasn’t exactly as what they had been told through propaganda and recruiting channels, there were still more than enough prepared to keep the fight going. Some of them were killed as the conflict raged on but now that the tide has turned against some of them in the al-Sham region, there are concerns that these fighters might return home to either carry out attacks or set up new terror cells. There are however a number of them that were captured by allied forces on the ground, that were imprisoned and debriefed and now await their fate in a cell… but western governments aren’t too keen on taking them back…

The obvious reasons are that they might be (in)directly involved in planning future terror attacks. These individuals often have received the necessary training to carry out attacks in a variety of ways, using equipment that is available in modern society on a day-to-day basis. They have served at the front in some capacity, giving them the experience and knowledge on how to handle a variety of deadly weapon in a combat-like situation. They could share this knowledge with other individuals who are looking for ways to inflict damage and take innocent lives.

But even incarcerating them might give them an opportunity to recruit new members from vulnerable groups in prison, which in turn could carry out attacks or set up new terror cells after they are released. There are a lot of jihadists whose lives have gotten off the rails, who choose a life of (petty) crime and have been incarcerated before they were ‘found’ and given a chance at redemption through fighting a holy war for Islam against the apostates and non-believers. And there are a lot of the same vulnerable people incarcerated at this very moment, looking for an opportunity at redemption.

Setting up deradicalization programs is also a difficult thing as there are as many views on how to do it as there are people writing about it. Attempts have been already made, in Jordan for example, with some success but to truly be effective we would need to implement it on a much broader scale. In the best case new institutions (or wings) would have to be constructed to make sure that these individuals are kept segregated and controlled in a manner that allows them to be fully engaged before they are gradually released into the general population of an institution and, in due time, society itself.

Putting these individuals on trial might prove more difficult than anticipated as well… The process of gathering all the evidence that is required to build a solid case against these individuals depends on numerous factors, the most important two of which are time and money…  Two things most governments could be unwilling to spend large amounts of on a sensitive matter such as this in times like these.

Throw away the key?

Is letting these individuals continue to sit in a cell in a foreign country the best thing to do? One could argue that this is the consequence of choices they made, the result of a chain of events they have put in motion themselves. Not only did they leave, most of them berated their former countries and even threatened them with attacks and the implementation of sharia law in its society. Taking away their citizenship and just forget about them seems the quickest and easiest way out. The United Kingdom has just taken away the citizenship of more than one hundred jihadists, sending a clear signal that it no longer wants anything to do with them and that those who are considering to do the same should think twice before doing it. Other countries are probably looking into doing the same thing but caution is advised since it might break international laws as no person can be stateless… But there might be an even greater risk in not taking them back.

These men and women already have gained some sort of status by like-minded people, almost becoming poster boys for recruiters and potential candidates. By not addressing this situation we risk that these people will be eventually set free and either reconnect with members of their former organization or travel to a new potential theatre of war. A similar situation arose during the war in the Balkans in the 90s. Hundreds of jihadists were left behind after the fighting who in time travelled to Afghanistan and more recently, Syria. Even now there are still no-go zones where Salafist communities have free reign and their influence is spreading.

A new way of life?

Do we have to accept that terror attacks are becoming less of rarity in our cities’ streets? Yes, sadly it is becoming something we have to accept, at least for now. But it does not mean that it has to be like this indefinitely. We can choose to accept that we cannot stop every single one that is determined to take to the streets with the intentions of harming innocent bystanders. What we can do is look for ways to fight this war in a manner that determines that we will win it.

If we can show leniency to those who were led astray we can use them to tell about their experiences so that we can continue to understand how they got to that point. They can share their stories at schools, mosques and other venues to show that the message they were told is full of lies and empty promises.

I do not mean to say that these people need to be released into society as soon as they get debriefed and get off the plane. But they should be put on trial for the crimes they have committed, sentenced and been given the chance, just like any other offender to rehabilitate before becoming a part of our society once more.

If we continue to turn a blind eye to what has happened in the (recent) past without being prepared to do right thing, which might be more difficult, take longer and cost more instead of using the quick and easy solution, we continue to risk the lives of those around, those whom we love and hold dear for decades..


= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

Syria: Ceasefires are an effective part of the Assad-coalition’s strategy

When the Syrian Uprising escalated into nation-wide violence and numerous groups were formed to protect their communities and fight the Assad government, momentum was on the opposition’s side as it didn’t take long before Assad loyalists were starting to lose control of large territories and were ousted from numerous cities across the country.

The Syrian Arab Army’s initial strategy was to keep a force in all corners of Syria to be able to hold onto the claim that the regime had not lost control of the country. There was still an SAA presence in the cities of Aleppo, Qamishli, Hasakah, Deir ez-Zour and Daraa although the majority of these cities were under the control of rebel groups as well as a large part of the surrounding countryside.

It was in the western part of the country that numerous pockets of rebel hold-outs began to form. The Assad loyalists began to besiege this pockets to avoid them from linking up with one another, defeat them quickly if the opportunity should arise or just force them to surrender by either bombing or starving them into submission. This tactic seemed to work as these fronts remained mostly static and could there for be manned by less experienced troops while the heavy lifting would be done by the air force and time itself…

The Syrian Arab Army had to prioritize its military efforts as it had to fight off rebel offensives on numerous fronts and it was struggling to keep all the fronts manned effectively. In Syria every man of fighting age has to serve several years in the armed forces and it could in theory gather an effective fighting force in a short amount of time. The problem was that many men refused to answer the call to arms to fight for the regime and joined the opposition or fled the country to avoid being conscripted and forced to fight. There were also numerous defections of servicemen among all branches and ranks that joined the opposition in their struggle against the regime. This resulted in a depleted fighting force on which the Assad regime had to rely to do the fighting. It could count on its most elite units of the republican guard, composed of mostly Shia men, to fight fanatically for the survival of the regime as well. But there was still a need for more men and therefor patriots, opportunists and those willing to fight for fame and loot were organised into units as National Defence Forces. Efforts were also made to attract and organize additional paramilitary forces that would be willing to fight for the regime, among which the Lebanese Hezbollah paramilitary and the Palestinian paramilitary group. But it still wasn’t enough as Assad forces were still too spread thin.

To effectively besiege this numerous pockets, a lot of preparation logistics and manpower was needed to make sure that those who were besieged couldn’t get out, were checked at any attempt as they would try to break out and to make sure that nothing could get in or out of the area, whether it were supplies, weapons, fighters, refugees, food or medicine. It basically came down to numbers, if you have to besiege a hundred fighting men you almost certainly need twice that number to keep them in there. As there were a few dozen rebel pockets across western Syria with several dozen fighters in each of them who were looking for a fight, the numbers quickly show that the Assad regime would be in trouble sooner than later. It would need an effective strategy to make sure that it could keep the opposition in check with as many men as possible while ceding as little territory as possible.

Thus began a truly ingenious part of warfare, the juggling of treaties and forces to keep a delicate balance while contact was established with the regime’s allies abroad. Whenever a crisis arose, the Assad regime was quick to announce a ceasefire in another part of the country for an amount of time that allowed government forces to redeploy and assist in ongoing operations there. This strategy was a vital part of the regime’s efforts and was used time and time again. Often terms were agreed upon which the regime would later not enforce, humanitarian convoys to rebel pockets were often stopped, delayed and even looted of some of its supplies. When the agreement was then dissolved and fighting resumed, the regime would already have troops in place to fight on. The rebel forces were too fragmented to counter the strategy. For most of the people in these pockets it must’ve been a relief to know that for a short amount of time no bullets and bombs would fly around them. One can only imagine how the situation on the ground could’ve been if the opposition would have declined the ceasefires and continued to keep the pressure on the regime’s forces.

Even now, with the numerous de-escalation zones implemented across Syria, I personally see mostly gains for the regime’s forces. It gives their forces precious time to regroup, rest, resupply and be trained to use better equipment sent by their international backers. It also allows them to secure vital territory in other parts of the country which strengthens the regime’s position during the peace talks.

 For the rebels though, it spell mostly doom. The opposition remains too divided to this day, moderates and more radical groups continue to bicker among themselves for territory and influence. In Idlib, which is considered by many the heart of the opposition movement in western Syria, clashes continue to break out between its prominent factions. A lull in the fighting is the worst thing that can happen to these undisciplined troops as they can no longer focus on the fight against the enemy and soon after they will begin to appreciate the calm and the lack of gunfire, they’ll begin to think of friends and family, or they’ll simply grow bored with the situation or each other.

= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

Syria: Why Turkey is not interested in peace as of yet

The Syrian Civil war might be an absolute nightmare in terms of destruction, casualties and complexity but it would seem that the major players in the conflict have their own goals  before they will make a genuine effort to bring an end to the fighting.

There have been some serious shifts in the balance of power during this conflict and at the moment it seems that all parties involved on the ground are taking a pause to consider their next big move in order to force a breakthrough. This article is aimed at giving an overview of the factions involved that have a lot to win and lose.

Turkey is experiencing a rapid economic growth and is very much a rising star in the region and potentially, internationally as it seeks to establish new and powerful relationships with other major countries. The Turkish president Erdoğan has taken credit for the country’s surge forward and has therefor gained the support of many of its people. Some of his plans however, are perceived as a possible threat to other factions within Turkey as Erdoğan’s rule seems increasingly more authoritarian to critics in Turkey and abroad. This mounting threat to several of Turkey’s powerful institutions, among which the military establishment, led to the failed coup attempt in 2016. President Erdoğan was quick to blame the Gülen organisation, someone who was an ally of his in the past, and began to purge Gülenist supporters across all of Turkey.

Erdoğan has also stated several times that certain regions that once belonged to Turkey’s predecessor, the Ottoman Empire, should be returned to its rightful ruler and has been a cause for concern for some its allies as Turkey’s surge in nationalism starts to lean towards chauvinism and could even strain important military alliances (NATO) and future political goals (derailing or stopping the EU talks)

Turkey has also been an important player in the Syrian Civil War as it saw an opportunity to end the Assad rule and possibly install a government that would look towards Turkey for guidance and support in the future. Things didn’t exactly turn out as everyone hoped and now Syria is locked in a bloody civil war for over seven years with thousands dead and millions more displaced. Turkey has become one of the countries that has sheltered millions of Syrian refugees and continues to provide vital support for the Internally Displaced People inside the Azaz-Jarabulus-al-Bab triangle by rebuilding vital infrastructure and providing the people with large amounts of goods.

Turkey has not let its support for numerous rebel factions waver as it continues to seek new ways to insert itself in the country and establish itself as a power player in the conflict and the region. It has even led to the direct support of rebel groups in northern Syria as Turkey launched an offensive to cut off the Syrian Democratic Forces from establishing a presence along the whole length of the Syrian-Turkish border. The fact that a possible off-shoot of the Turkish-Kurdish PKK terror organization that shares parts of its ideology is a major cause for concern. The PKK continues to cause casualties in the south-eastern part of Turkey and numerous attempts of Turkish security forces at stomping it out have led to a great deal of criticism from the international community and its European allies.

It has even led to numerous deals being put on hold or being dissolved, angering Turkish president Erdoğan. The Germans for example stopped delivering weapons to the Turks as they feared these weapons were being used against the Turkish-Kurdish people. Turkey seems to have responded by expanding its domestic military production capabilities and showing its critics that it intends to follow through on the course that has been set by its government. It also recently launched a new warship and president Erdoğan stated that Turkey aims to build a large fleet with some aircraft carriers.

This has made Turkey somewhat unpredictable as it seems perfectly fine with dealing with both sides that are currently fighting in the Syrian conflict. 





= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

(Middle East) Fault Lines in the Middle East: Fresh water

A basic necessity

As the population of the world continues to grow, our global reserves of natural resources are pushed to their limits in order to meet these demands. One of these resources, clean drinkable water, could have been taken for granted for too long and as it becomes more valuable year after year, it could become a serious point of contention in the near future in the region.

Historically, our species quickly understood the importance of fresh water to sustain its survival in the long term and many of the first settlements could be found next to large regional rivers, such as the Nile river in Egypt, the Euphrates and Tigris river in Mesopotamia, Indus in South Asia and the Yellow river in modern China.

Local rivers or wells could supply the fresh water that was needed in the fields or domestic usage, but as our species’ population exponentially began to increase, the demand for fresh water rose dramatically. New wells were dug across the region which lowered the ground water level and it was unable to replenish at the rate that it was pumped up, making matters worse over time. A good example of this is the Jordan river, where the water level dropped drastically in just over a decade. Where people used to be at the risk of drowning, they can now stand in the river up to their wastes.

The building of dams was also a viable option but it lead to neighbouring countries that were depending on the same river complaining about a certain amount of water that had to be guaranteed at all times, leading to regional tensions. This was the case when Turkey built a dam on the Euphrates river of which both Syria and Iraq were depending for their own needs. Intensive negotiations took place in order to ensure that all countries involved were ensured of their fair share of fresh water.

Some countries were lucky to find new large deposits of fresh water that they could start using to meet the country’s demands. Libya found a large aquifer in the southern part of the country and started an enormous project, the Great Man-Made River project, to get the necessary infrastructure in place to pump it to the coastal areas.

Desalination as a possible solution

Israel is one of the few countries in the region that is affluent when it comes to fresh water supply. Although it used to suffer from water shortages, efforts have been made to turns things drastically around. Not only was there a broad spectrum of information that was used to sensitize the population of the importance of not wasting fresh water, but new research led to large facilities where salt water could be converted into fresh water through desalination. Through this process the Israeli population could be supplies with a large amount of fresh water in a relative short of time.

The success of this project led to many other countries undertaking similar projects and in the gulf region there are now dozens of desalination plants. Problem solved? Not quite. There is still not enough information at hand whether desalination is the solution to the problem of fresh water shortages. The desalination process produces a very concentrated waste that is dumped back into the sea. Because of lack of data about the possible effects on the ecosystem and biodiversity no efforts were made to regulate how the waste should be processed before being released back into the sea (or if the concentrate should be released at all). 

Desalination is also very energy-intensive as the process basically involves pushing large quantities of water through numerous layers of membranes that filter the various unwanted elements out of the water before distributing it into the local grid. Numerous plants were also built that aimed to turn the waste from domestic usage back into usable water supplies that could be used to water crops, resulting in a system that re-uses the available water supply many times over.

Water politics

It has been proven that having control of a vital supply of fresh water provides a lot of leverage and could over time even be used as effective as any other weapon of war.

After the establishment of the caliphate, Turkey drastically cut the water flow into Syria resulting in a dramatic drop of the water level along the Euphrates’ numerous settlements. When the situation worsened the jihadists even threatened to march on the Turkish capital ‘and force them to release the water needed’. Now that the Syrian Democratic Forces control large swathes of the Euphrates river, one who is also an enemy of Turkey, it could resort to similar tactics to force the organisation to accept unfavourable terms in the future.

A similar situation could be developing between the Kurdish Regional Government and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The KRG has stated several times that there wasn’t enough water flowing into the western part of the region because Iran had altered the flow. This could be to increase pressure on the KRG for its support of Iranian Kurds who are also pressing their claim in Iran for more equality, the recognition of their cultural identity and reforms.

Israel on the other hand seized a vital region with fresh water springs from Syria during both the Six Days War and the Yom Kippur War, following treaties led to some concessions but Israel still controls two-thirds of the Golan Heights and has stated numerous times that it should remain a part of Israel. It is possible that Israel’s  (in)direct involvement in the Syrian Civil War is aimed at forcing the Assad regime to hand over control of the Golan Heights to Israel for all time. It is also in a favourable position, as I mentioned earlier, where it has a surplus of fresh water that it can use to negotiate with its neighbours to get more favourable terms on certain diplomatic issues.

Cause for concern

In certain areas, more than others in the Middle East, the prospect of having a lack of fresh water supplies to meet the demands of its population may be a very big reason for concern since it might lead to increasing unrest. It is important to note that at the moment almost all of the gulf states subsidize the availability of fresh water to its (native) citizens and that at the moment there are few regulations on its usage.

Another important note is that when the Arabic Spring movement surged across many nations of the Middle East, some countries had almost no problem with large demonstrations or were able to make quick concessions and promises that eased the minds of the groups that were taking to the streets. This was the case in Morocco and many of the gulf states, to name a few. In the event that these governments fail to address this specific problem it might lead to another crisis that might lead to a drastic shift in power.

The only thing that is sure at the moment is that fresh water is of vital importance to our species, but it would seem that it could become the new currency in the Middle East in the near future.





= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.

Syria: How the Syrian Uprising was hijacked

How the Syrian revolution was hijacked.

The Syrian Civil War is one of the bloodiest conflict of the 21^st century, raging across most of the country for almost eight years, killing hundreds of thousands and displacing millions. And it doesn’t look like it is going to stop any time soon.

 It all started at the start of 2011 when Arab Spring movement was gaining momentum across the region and the peaceful mass protest around Syria, calling for an end to the socio-political repression and lack of substantial economic reforms, turned violent when government security forces started arresting protesters en masse, using live ammunition and other means of excessive force to quell the movement. After that the situation spiralled out of control quickly: people took up arms to defend their neighbourhoods against bands of government loyalists that came to intimidate, kill and plunder hotspots of dissent. Army helicopters started dropping barrel-bombs on areas packed with people, causing panic, terror and killing dozens. Battle-lines were drawn across cities and neighbourhoods and people who lived side by side for years were now killing each other. The international community repeatedly demanded that Assad should step down in an attempt to de-escalate the growing level of violence, but Assad rejected this by stating that the people who had taken up arms against him were nothing more than terrorists and foreign agents that would be rooted out and dealt with.

Now almost eight years later, the war is still going on as it is without any doubt one of the most complicated conflicts we’ve seen in modern history. and it wasn’t long before the gloves came completely off and the systematic destruction of ancient buildings and historic sites, the deployment of heavy weapons against civilian areas, massacres and the usage of chemical weapons became all too real.

The question is how this situation spiralled out of control so quickly and isn’t showing any signs of settling any time soon. In order to take a critical look at the present, we often have to look back and identify the things that had a critical impact on the general situation.

When looking at different aspects of the country, it quickly becomes clear that modern Syria is very diverse in a variety of ways.

Historically the region was one of the earliest places where the human race started to build its first civilisations around 4,000 years ago. It has seen the rise and fall of numerous empires that wanted control of the region as it was at the centre of trade routes from every direction. These empires brought with them their own culture and religion which resulted in a very unique ethnic (Arab, Hebrew, Turkmen, Syriac, Kurdish) and religious (Sunni Islam, Shia Islam, Jews, Christianity) demographic composition and is represented in communities all across Syria.

Although the country is officially known as the Syrian Arab Republic, the structure of the government shows that the actual power lies predominantly with a minority, and a select few within that minority. The ruling minority consists of Alawites which is a branch of Shia Islam and came to power after Hafez al-Assad took power in 1970, installing a regime where all the important positions in the military, state security and intelligence were dominated by loyal people from the Shia community.

This security apparatus was also designed in a way that no high-ranking position had the possibility of gaining enough influence to attempt at a coup himself. It resulted in a leadership that was well insulated, protected by a broad security force that aimed to stamp out any sign of dissent, resulting in a society where one simply had to come to terms with this new way of life or risk everything by voicing his opinion too loud.

When Hafez al-Assad died in 2000 and his Bashar succeeded him there was a hope that this new leader would herald in a new era for Syria in which the socio-political repression would end and necessary reforms would be implemented. Although the first indications were hopeful as political prisoners were released and  steps were taken to introduce certain new laws, it became clear that the balance of power was to remain unchanged and that any attempts to do so would resort in severe punishment.

When the socio-political movement, which would become known in the West as the Arab Spring, gained momentum across northern Africa and saw several controversial governments fall, the people in Syria saw a chance for a similar chance and took to the streets to give voice to opinions and hopes they had to speak about in small circles behind closed doors for so long. Cities like Daraa, Damascus and Hama became some of the prominent places where thousands of Syrians marched for change.

Although the Assad government initially didn’t seem to take it too seriously, as the protest marches continued day after day government security forces suddenly responded by arresting protesters en masse and using force to break up the groups. When they arrested a number of youngsters who were part of the protest movement, violence broke out after the situation quickly deteriorated. Military vehicles appeared in the streets and security forces were ordered to shoot at the masses with live ammunition.

These actions were defended by stating that the protest movement in Syria was the work of extremists and foreign agents who were working to undermine the stability and unity of the country. There are numerous reports that the Assad government released extremists from its prisons in order for them to mingle with the movement and re-establish contact with their own movements. It is by doing this that the Assad government was able to cause the first rift in the Syrian revolutionary movement. By injecting extremist elements into the mainly democratic movement it was able to bolster its claims that extremists were moving against the state and therefor justifying its extreme measures that could be seen in the streets. It also caused the opposition to lose coherence and break up into multiple factions of moderates and more radical groups.

It is one of the oldest lessons in warfare and is still accurate today: If you succeed in dividing the opposing force into multiple smaller, less effective forces you will ultimately succeed in defeating them.

Throughout the Syrian Civil War the Assad government would exploit the rifts and animosity between rebel groups to gain a tactical or strategic advantage where it could have suffered a defeat. For example, the government would negotiate a ceasefire with certain groups in one part of the country for then to relocate a portion of the troops from that front to a another where the situation was critical. The most recent example of this strategy is, in my opinion, the instalment of these de-escalation zones across Syria, among one of them in the Idlib province, the bulk of the Assad loyalists started a new campaign shortly after to finish the conquest of the Aleppo province and attack territory held by the Islamic State who was too busy concentrating on the Syrian Democratic Forces who were working their way through Tabqah and to Raqqa.

By successfully doing this, the Assad loyalists have secured the majority of Aleppo province, cut off both the Syrian Democratic Forces moving west from Manbij and the Turkish backed Free Syrian Army groups from moving south and strengthening its position and the negotiation table.





= = = = = = = = 

If you have any questions, remarks or constructive feedback on the content or my writing, please do not hesitate to leave a comment. I would love to use this platform to interact with people to discuss topics like these and gain new perspectives and improve on my writing skills.