Syria: Western backers at an important crossroads

After almost seven years of gruesome warfare and hundreds of thousands of casualties it would seem like the Syrian conflict is entering a new phase. The Assad-regime has succeeded in re-establishing control in large swathes of the country thanks to the support of its allies. The rhetoric and the calculated political moves the regime continues to make are worrying since it shows that there will be almost no room for a lasting political solution that involves the other factions. 

The rebels are too fractured

The Syrian population initially took to the streets against the Assad-regime with the hope that it would implement a number of reforms. The Syrian people had enough of the authoritarian government that mainly looked after a privileged elite while using a large security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. When the protests turned violent, civilians began to organize themselves in militias to protect their homes, neighbourhoods and villages against raiding parties of Assadists who came to intimidate protesters. They mostly  consisted of paramilitary loyalists who sensed an opportunity to loot people’s homes without repercussions. As the resistance against the Assad-regime began to consolidate these groups became more organized thanks to a lot of soldiers that defected in large numbers.

The fragile cooperation and the ideological divide between the different rebel groups became apparent when the numerous groups began to pursue their own agendas to draw more support from their foreign backers and begin to bicker among themselves to carve up territory that they would begin to govern as they seemed fit. Matters were made worse with the emergence of several jihadist groups that saw an opportunity to gain support and influence in the region by fighting an enemy everyone wanted gone. The momentum these groups had on the battlefield at one point was lost because of this lack of cohesion.

The lack of coordination, gains and the enormous amount of money that was poured into these groups for tactical training and weapons through their foreign backers led to the decision that these programs would be either scaled down or shut down completely. The U.S. was one of these backers, and now numerous moderate rebels are at risk of being dissolved or absorbed by radical groups. The de-escalation zones that were implemented across Syria emphasize the critical situation in which the rebels find themselves, as the lack of cohesion between the groups leads to infighting and a waste of resources that could be used against their common enemy.

When the Assad-regime will focus its resources on these fronts it is unlikely that these groups will be able to mount a coordinated and an effective defence against the now military superior Assad forces. There will be also little to no political intervention on their behalf by the international community because of their radical beliefs.

The Assad-coalition has the upper-hand

The Assad coalition has succeeded in gaining the upper-hand both militarily and politically in the Syrian conflict, in no small part thanks to the contributions of its allies, of which Iran and Russia both played a crucial role. This allows them to focus their resources on a specific front, targeting certain groups in particular and gain another strategic or political advantage over the other factions. It gives them more leverage during the negotiations that aim to end the fighting and find a political solution.

At the start of the conflict the regime found itself in increasingly more trouble as it began to lose more and more control of the country. It only seemed a matter of time before the regime would fall as the loyalists were unable to mount successful offensives with the limited resources they had across the country. The regime was forced to concentrate its resources in a few elite units that would rush to the most critical fronts while a defensive posture was implemented across other fronts. Assad loyalists began to dig in and fortify their military bases and neighbourhoods while the air force began to systematically destroy rebel-held territory with a variety of ordnance. Barrel bombs, thermobaric ordnance and even chemical weapons were used on a large scale, mostly against its civilian population. This in turn resulted in a regional and international refugee crisis as millions were forced to flee the country. During all this the Assad-regime continued to claim that it was in control of most of the country.

The support the regime received was at first not enough to turn the tide in their favour as the rebels received increasingly more (in)direct support from their foreign backers. Turkey, the United States, Israel  and several gulf states in particular realised that the removal of the Assad regime could be a very good thing. The increasing amount of Iranian troops and Russian hardware however allowed the Assad-regime to mount its first series of offensives in the western part of Syria, taking control of the Khanassar-route and reaching its beleaguered forces in Syria’s largest city of Aleppo. The Assad-regime also began to push back against the rebel forces around the capital of Damascus and Daraa, more to the south. Large scale counteroffensives mounted by rebel forces were blocked and ultimately defeated.

The regime also succeeds in conquering more territory as it negotiates the surrender of rebel pockets across Syria, offering them amnesty or the opportunity to relocate with their families to rebel-held territory. These negotiations are undertaken by the reconciliation centre under the supervision of the regime’s Russian allies. This allows the regime to divert more troops to other fronts, avoid casualties while consolidating the rebels in certain parts of the country.

Both Iran and Russia have a lot to gain if the Assad-regime were to be victorious. Iran can expand its political influence in the country and put more pressure on its regional adversaries, Israel in particular. Russia on the other hand now has a permanent military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean thanks to the bases under its control in Latakia province. It is also very likely that Syria will become Russia’s most profitable foreign market in the foreseeable future. The possibility of a trial and conviction of the regime and its leader is also very unlikely as Russia continues to protect both with its right of veto. This led to the resignation of the head of the committee that was looking into war crimes committed in Syria as Carla del Ponte was convinced that there was more than enough evidence to convict the regime but it would just not be possible because of Russian interference. The regime might survive this conflict but it would seem that it has sold its soul to its allies as the main reasons that led to the outbreak of the protests and the revolt are still not addressed.

It is very likely that the regime will return to doing the same things that it has always done, which is using the security apparatus to stamp out any form of dissent. There is also the possibility that the security forces in due time will use the footage that was created by rebel forces and shared through social media to identify would-be rebels, apprehend and imprison them. 

The caliphate collapses

The Islamic State is desperately clinging onto the territory that remains under their control in al-Sham. After the fall of Mosul and Tal-Afar in Iraq the terror group only hold territory around Hawija and the deserts near the Syrian border.

In Syria the caliphate is buckling under increasing pressure from all fronts as the capital of Raqqa is under attack by Syrian Democratic Forces and its front lines in central Syria were overrun by the Assad-coalition’s forces. This offensive was aimed at lifting the siege of Deir Ez-Zour where a loyalist garrison held of the jihadists for three years. Now that the core territory of the caliphate is overrun many of its fighters begin to lose heart and look for ways to escape capture and prosecution.

Despite all this, the terror group is far from defeated as their caliph, al-Baghdadi, has eluded capture so far despite numerous attempts to kill and/or capture him, along with several prominent members. In the future the group will return to the shadow organisation it was before, using terror attacks to undermine the regional governments and inflame sectarian tensions while rebuilding its strength, support and forging new alliances with other terror groups, among which possibly Al-Qaeda.

It is very likely that the group in due time will resurface in another part of the world, at the moment the caliphate has a foothold in the Philippines, Afghanistan and West-Africa. It is also plausible that the group will try to gain a foothold in regions where it can ignite new violence and draw on new supporters, for example in Central Asia, or even reignite tensions in post-war regions such as the Balkans, where there are still numerous conservative Muslim communities with radical influences and where the authorities hesitate to go, creating effective no-go zones.

Are the Syrian Democratic Forces our best bet for change?

One of the moderate groups in the Syrian conflict that managed to achieve solid results are the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) that aim for a decentralised political system that guarantees the political and cultural rights of the country’s numerous ethnic and religious minorities. The movement consists of Syrian Kurds, Arabs, Turkmen, Yezidis, Syriacs (to name only a few) but is at the moment dominated by the Syrian Kurds.

The group received the (in)direct support of several western countries in their struggle against the Islamic State, the U.S., the U.K., Germany and France all made contributions varying from logistical support, fire support, arms, training and even Special Operation Forces.

The Obama-administration tried to fight the Islamic State through its proxies as much as possible, trying to avoid a situation where the U.S. would be sent into another costly long-term conflict in the Middle East. As the fight against the Islamic State became more intense, there was a need for more support which resulted into an increase of American troops and hardware in the region.

The Trump administration was partially elected thanks to the rhetoric of then candidate Trump where he claimed on numerous occasions that he would bring the fight against the Islamic State into a higher gear by ‘bombing the shit out of them’.

It didn’t take long after president Trump was elected that there was a significant increase in American troops noticeable in Syria, partially to help support the long-awaited offensive on Raqqa. This higher gear sadly also lead to a noticeable increase in civilian casualties as the battles for Mosul and Raqqa intensified despite implementing procedures that were aimed at avoiding these kind of casualties in the first place.

More war or Cold war?

The question is what the United States’ strategic objectives will be once Raqqa falls and Deir Ez-Zour is within reach. The main focus will be on clearing out the last pockets that will be under the control of the Islamic State and tracking down as many of the leadership as possible before they have the chance to flee the region. It is also vital that the Syrian Democratic Forces consolidate their hold on the northern bank of the Euphrates river to avoid that the Assad-coalition gains a foothold there. Both the Assad-coalition and the SDF will become the two prominent factions in the Syrian conflict which means that they’ll have to come together and start negotiating at some point. The question is whether both parties are interested at this point to begin negotiations because their agendas are as far apart from one another as possible.

Bashar al-Assad has declared on numerous occasions that he intends to regain control of every inch of Syrian territory. Thanks to the support of Iran and Russia is very likely that he will succeed in this if the West does not make it clear to him that this is no longer a realistic scenario in a post-ISIS Syria. At the moment the SDF are in control of a significant part of Syria and thanks to recent successful offensives around the Euphrates, are now also in control of strategic civilian infrastructure like oil fields and dams. This could give them some political leverage during future negotiations. The problem is that the Assad-regime does not recognize the SDF as a political actor in the conflict, which could possible lead to a military confrontation.

It is also unclear where the Trump-administration stands as there have been some very contradicting statements in the past. Initially it looked like the U.S. were planning to continue to support the SDF in Syria while maintaining a presence in the region for several years. This was reported as incorrect as an official announcement stated that the U.S. would end its support to the SDF after the Islamic State was defeated. The Western military presence in Syria is also unofficial and not legal according to international laws. The Assad regime has never given the U.S. or any other western country the permission to build up a military presence within its borders. This is the case with both Iran and Russia, who were officially asked to intervene on behalf of the regime.

The U.S. has also lost a lot of partners in the region over the past years and is trying to keep some sort of influence in the region and its changing dynamics. The relationship with Turkey has hit a low point because the U.S. is providing broad support to an organization which Turkey regards as a terror organization and has opted out of working with Turkey and its proxies in the past. There is also the matter in which Turkey has been cracking down on its people after the failed coup attempt and has become increasingly more authoritarian, which led to criticism from several prominent leaders in the West, among which German chancellor Angela Merkel. Turkey is also displeased with the U.S. because it refuses to hand over the presumed leader of the failed coup who lives in exile in the States, even after ‘a considerable amount of evidence’ was provided to them.

There is also an increasing amount of Russian and Iranian influence noticeable in the region. The Iraqi government announced that it was looking into ways to cooperate more closely with Teheran in the future, while it also began to court several Gulf states which led to a diplomatic crisis and the blockade of Qatar. It is also speculated that Iran has been supporting the Houthi rebels in the Yemeni conflict who are fighting a Saudi-led coalition and have on several occasions embarrassed the Saudi forces with numerous victories.

Russia was awarded an important military contract in both Iraq and Egypt and has also sold it newest air-defence system, the S-400, to Turkey. Russia has also begun with re-establishing ties with Libya, which is still in turmoil after the fall of Gadhaffi.

The U.S. will try to counter these new spheres of influence by securing one of their own with the help of new regional partners. The Syrian and Iraqi Kurds could therefor prove vital for the American strategic objectives in the Middle East. In both regions the U.S. has announced several projects to help these groups with the rebuilding effort and possibly paving the way for an American military presence. The problem with this is that the U.S. will be creating new regional actors and will have to sustain them for a certain period of time. This is very much the case for the northern Syrian democratic federation that is literally surrounded on all sides by hostile governments.

It is very likely that the Assad-coalition is going to test whether the Trump administration is really willing to risk a direct confrontation by standing with the SDF when a battle-hardened force with serious hardware comes knocking. As I mentioned earlier the United States’ presence in the country is unlawful which could lead to an international diplomatic embarrassment when the Assad-coalition calls on the international community to make the U.S. withdraw from Syrian sovereign territory. There are also not enough western troops in Syria to be stationed along the frontlines to discourage the regime’s forces from trying anything and the West doesn’t have enough political capital to enforce a political solution. It also seems unlikely that the Trump administration will be willing to invest enormous amounts of money in the region to help the SDF in fighting the Assad-coalition. Trump famously criticized the previous administration for jumping into another regional conflict that would cost enormous amounts of money to achieve unrealistic objectives that were a waste of time.

===
If you have any constructive feedback on my writing skills or the content that is published here, feel free to leave me a comment so that I can improve my skills.

(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.

USA - Middle East: Donald Trump severely compromised U.S foreign policy in the Middle East

During the presidential election campaign of 2016 Donald Trump quickly made headlines with his bold statements on domestic and foreign issues. He would repeal and replace Obamacare, build a great southern wall “to keep the bad guys out,” rebuild the aging American infrastructure and turn the fight with the Islamic State into high gear by “bombing the shit out of them.”

Trump’s controversial travel ban, aimed at monitoring and decreasing the arrival of Muslims from a number of Middle Eastern countries for so-called security reasons, caused a major uproar as thousands of people took to the streets across the States to voice their concerns over the direction this new administration was taking their country. Although the first draft was dismissed,  the administration made it clear that it would put it forward again as the threat was real and it was only a matter of time before an attack took place without the necessary precautions. The American Supreme Court recently decided to allow certain parts of the ban to be implemented although there are still ambiguous terms in there that will cause problems in the near future.

President Trump’s unique insights on how to revitalize the American economy would lead to the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord as there was no convincing argument regarding global warming. The (non-binding) agreement was extremely hard on the United States’ coal mining industry while other global powers such as India and China could even increase their emission output. The Dakota Pipeline project that was put on hold because of environmental concerns was restarted despite protests and concerns from several politicians. As the whole world continues to put its hope in renewable energies, the Trump administration sticks to coal and oil and now even has plans to expand its fracking operations, something that was deemed too expensive before and could potentially be dangerous to the countries’ water supplies although these concerns are dismissed because at the moment there haven’t been any conclusive studies.

After taking office, Trump was quick to resurrect and push through an arms deal with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, worth over one billion dollars, which was tabled under the Obama administration because it was considered immoral as the ordnance might be used in the Syrian conflict as well as Yemen. The Trump administration had no such qualms as it was “a great deal” that would result in a major boost of the American economy and a much-needed win for the president. Trump was also quick to pick the Saudis’ side in their beef with Qatar as the Wahhabi kingdom moves to send a clear message through the Arabian peninsula that working with its regional nemesis Iran would be very unwise. Interestingly the rest of the administration was more hesitant to declare a side as Qatar hosts an important American base that provides the U.S. with a foothold in the region.

Trump also took the gloves off in the fight against the Islamic State as the air campaign against the terror group was intensified and additional forces were sent to provide training and indirect fire support in the campaigns in Mosul and Raqqa. This escalation resulted in a noticeable increase in civilian casualties, something the previous administration tried to avoid. Although it has to be said that this number could only increase as the fighting would intensify in urban areas, dropping heavy ordnance on civilian infrastructure when it is known that civilians are used as human shields sends the wrong message to the people you’re trying to liberate and get on your side, period.

The Trump administration’s attitude towards the Assad regime has changed a number of times as they initially wanted him gone, then wanted him to stay to provide some stability in the transition period (when it still looked like the status quo was still somewhat in effect). However after the chemical attack in Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib province the administration called Assad unfit for office and even fired Tomahawk missiles toward a Syrian airbase “to send a clear message,” only to declare a few months later (by Rex Tillerson) that Assad’s future should be determined by Russia, effectively declaring that Russia was in the driving seat from then on. This constant shifting does not inspire confidence in the US’ long-time allies and the proxies it is backing on the ground.

Trump’s newest attempt to show his diplomatic prowess may very well be the final nail in the coffin for the American influence in the Syrian conflict and the region. By ending the CIA-funded arming program in support for these groups it can only spell certain doom for them as the American-supplied Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGMs) are an essential part of the rebels’ strategy in holding the Assad forces at bay. Even worse is that it was done to mend the relationship with Russia, a backer of Assad, which could be perceived by the rebel groups as a form of betrayal. What few moderate groups remain in Syria are now at risk of disbanding completely or being absorbed by more radical groups such as Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham. This group is one of the dominant factions in the opposition and currently moves to secure its hold over the other rebel groups in Idlib province.

It is very possible that this initial dismay could turn into an anti-American (or anti-western) attitude which could lead to an effective recruiting ground for terror groups that aim to carry out attacks against western installations or assets in the region or even on their home turf. This could lead to a difficult relationship with its regional partners, for example the kingdom of Jordan, as they could get caught in the crossfire. Other partners who are have been looking for opportunities to increase their influence and role in the region, Turkey and Israel, might even distance themselves further from the Trump as they begin to set their own course that serves their own interests best, rather than looking towards the U.S. for approval.

It looks like Trump’s policy of ‘America First’ is becoming reality, but not the way he intended…By charting a course for the U.S. that serves its own agenda this administration will continue to alienate the country from its allies and erode the foundations of several important institutions it was one a prominent member of… ‘America First’ could very well become ‘America Alone’ while other countries move in to fill the vacuum.

= = = = = = = = 

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.

Lebanon Refugee Crisis: the next possible hotspot in the Middle East?

Lebanon’s prime minister al-Hariri stated that his country urgently needed more international help in order to provide for the 1,5 million Syrian refugees that are currently living there.

Almost seven years into the Syrian conflict the number of refugees continue to be a major cause for concern for the region and the international community. More than 5 million Syrians have fled the country and are living in camps across the region, with around 3 million Syrian refugees living in camps in Turkey, 1,5 million in Lebanon and the remainder living in Jordan, (southern) Iraq and Egypt or moving even further away in an attempt to reach Europe and the US.

Adding to this, around 6 million Syrians are currently displaced inside Syria, living in areas under control of the different factions . This number is truly astounding when the population of Syria had been estimated to around 17 million people in 2014. This would mean that almost two-thirds(!) of the Syrian population are currently (in)directly forcibly displaced by the ongoing conflict.

Hosting and providing for the refugees in Lebanon hasn’t been an easy task. Lebanon has been trying to deal with a slowing economic growth and numerous other domestic problems, but at the moment the population of Lebanon has increased by twenty-five percent only through the refugee influx, which has put a tremendous strain on available resources and services. Although the situation hasn’t gotten out of hand up until now, the atmosphere is definitely changing.

Lebanese people are growing tired of the continuous presence of Syrians in the streets, looking to sell anything they can or offering themselves for low-paying labour jobs. They also believe that the government is currently doing more for them than their own people. This could potentially become a very dangerous situation when the necessary international aid does not arrive in the needed quantities to start supporting the Lebanese government and relieve the tension in its society. An example of this is when a short while ago two separate incidents occurred in the camps where fires broke out and dozens of tents, along with all the people’s belongings went up in flames. Several people, among which children, were severely injured. The incidents were classified as unfortunate accidents due to a technical malfunction of hardware. Thanks to humanitarian organisations operating in the country efforts were made to rebuild the necessary number of tents to help the people affected by the disaster.

People could easily start taking matters into their own hands when the situation is not properly addressed by the Lebanese government and the international community. Targeted assaults, forced entry into the camps and arson are only a few things that come to mind of what could happen… What is even worse, an escalation or lack of initiative could reignite the sectarian violence that has cast a shadow over the country’s recent history and to this day hasn’t been truly settled.

When Lebanon was under colonial rule after the Great War, the Maronite Christian community had a strong working relationship with the French and gradually became the dominant faction in politics after its independence in the 1940s. During the Cold War several Arab groups were inspired by the ideas of socialism and pan-Arab ideologies which led to an increasing polarized society. When clashes broke out in 1975 these Arab groups were (in-directly supported by the Soviet-Union(’s allies in the region) while the Christian communities were supported leaned towards the West. It didn’t take long before Syria and Israel joined the fray and the US (as part of their Cold War’s containment policy) became indirectly involved.

In the 1980s Israel invaded Lebanon to stamp out insurgents that were attacking from there and an international force had to be sent to intervene. It was only in 1990 that hostilities officially came to an end through the Taif Agreement but to this day tensions are high, clashes are frequent in several parts of the country between communities and parts of the Taif Agreement haven’t been implemented or followed. 

= = = = = = = = 

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 Israel is not interested in peace as of yet.

The Syrian Civil War has presented Israel with a number of opportunities to help it solidify its influence in the region. It is arguably one of the few surrounding countries that has actually benefitted a lot from the turmoil. Whether the FSA, ISIS or the SDF have the upper-hand in Syria doesn’t matter much to Israel as these factions are not allied to its most important enemies in the region.

The conflict weakened an enemy, since Syria and Israel are technically still at war with one another, that has provided valuable support to another threat to Israel in neighbouring Lebanon, the Hezbollah group. The idea that the Assad regime could be replaced by a more moderate government that would frown upon supporting an international labelled terror group is something that would strengthen Israel position while it would ultimately weaken its nemesis’ position… Iran.

Israel has provided valuable support to the FSA’s southern front in terms of weapons and supplies and even resorted to occasionally bombing regime positions. It has also gradually expanded its influence along the Golan Heights border region by supporting the population there, creating an additional buffer zone. If the Assad government could be forced to terms at some point in the conflict, it is very much possible that Israel would want Syria to release its claim from the Golan Heights for all eternity, strengthening its position in the region even more by securing valuable resources, fresh water, for itself in the future.

Now that more and more de-escalation zones have been installed across Syria, including to the south, Israel must realize that the war has entered an entirely new phase, as all parties are moving to secure as much territory as possible from ISIS, taking one more player off the board.

I am convinced that Israel has too much to gain from a weakened Syria and will seek ways to keep the fighting in the southern part of the country going, one way or another. The Israelis are a patient people and have been playing the long game all along.

= = = = = = = = 

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 Raqqa-offensive might backfire

For the past months the international media have been painting a pretty picture of the ongoing war against the Islamic State. The group’s territory and holdings have been significantly reduced thanks to the efforts of the international coalition. Several prominent players in the group’s organization were targeted and it became increasingly more difficult for the group to attract new recruits. The impressive flow of wealth the group once managed was also systematically targeted, which led to a great amount of fighters who became disgruntled by seeing their pay-outs reduced drastically.

More importantly is that the group’s core territory came under threat in both Syria and Iraq by the international coalition. In Iraq the Iraqi Army began its long-awaited offensive to liberate the Mosul, the largest and most important stronghold of the Islamic State in the country. In Syria the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continue to capture more territory previously held by the terror group. Recently Tabqah was liberated and the river Euphrates was reached in several locations, isolating the city of Raqqa even more.

Although the goal is conquering Raqqa, there are still some important things to take into account. The SDF consists predominantly of Syrian Kurds who fight under the YPG-formation. This was set in motion in an attempt to defend their villages back when the Islamic State had the upper hand in the region, but it was through the Kurds’ determination, courage and sacrifices that the Islamic State suffered its first defeat at Kobanê and in other locations of the region. As the YPG continued to beat back the IS, more groups started to join the movement, and the the Syrian Democratic Forces fwas formed. As they continued to liberate more areas they set up local councils consisting of local dignitaries from the different ethnic-religious communities to govern the area together.

The SDF continues to receive more support from the United States which is something that its neighbouring country Turkey doesn’t like at all. Turkish president Erdoğan has repeatedly stated that this Kurdish faction has close ties with the Turkish-based PKK group. The fact that the SDF are receiving heavy weapons to support the push south is something that left the Turkish government fuming. The Turkish government doesn’t want to see an established zone of influence managed by Kurds on its southern border and is there for not too happy about how things are currently developing. It was because of this the Turkish government offered to take Raqqa with the FSA-rebel groups it supports.

This proposition was declined because of several reasons. These rebel groups’ battle performance wasn’t too impressive, which became painfully clear when these units tried to take the city of al-Bab from the Islamic State. After numerous setbacks Turkish forces were sent in to stop the bleeding but even then these forces suffered some embarrassing setbacks. Several of these rebel groups’ reputation had suffered as well when it was reported they used excessive violence. The fact that the Turkish progress in northern Syria was bottle-necked by both American and Russian intervention is something that Erdoğan doesn’t like at all. He clearly saw himself playing a more prominent role in this conflict and will look for new ways to insert himself once more the moment he sees his chance.

The biggest problem is that there is a certain aspect of the Raqqa-offensive that has been downplayed to a great extent, which is the humanitarian aspect. The international coalition hasn’t made any serious attempts at providing shelter, food and security for the people who are displaced because of the ongoing violence. Local sources reported for the urgent need for a better coordinated effort at a much larger scale. The administration of the Democratic Federation of northern Syria (Rojava) has become a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of people from all over Syria who were forced to flee. Recently more refugees came from Iraq’s Nineveh province when the offensive for Mosul was launched. It takes a consistent effort to shelter, feed and provide other necessary services to help these people. When thousands more will arrive because of the fighting in and around Raqqa, the situation might soon become a crisis.

The coalition doesn’t seem to have learnt any lessons from the offensive for Mosul, despite warnings from aid organisations who tried to manage the situation. It soon became clear that the prepared camps were filled to capacity and there were more people coming every day. The fight for Mosul has been going for eight months and there’s still thousands of people trapped in hostile territory, which will only lead to an even greater humanitarian catastrophe.

If we don’t want to see the same thing happening in Rojava, the SDF need to receive international humanitarian aid in order to prepare the necessary infrastructure , resources, and logistics before the offensive on Raqqa is launched. This would mean refugee camps for several hundreds of thousands of people, drinkable water, food, medicine and other means of support. These tasks have to be performed by people who are experienced in these matters which only stresses the need for more cooperation with aid organizations.

So far it looks like the international coalition, and the US in particular, are hell-bent on taking Raqqa as soon as possible. What they seem to forget is that the fight against the Islamic State is just one aspect of the conflict that is raging in Syria and that a well-established and coordinated humanitarian presence in this part of the war-torn country can play a vital role in achieving their operational goals. It could help in decreasing the amount of refugees seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, which would relieve some of the pressure on these regional partners. It could also help to set up additional de-escalation zones and could even strengthen the political position of these groups at the negotiation table, because so far the SDF weren’t invited to the table to take part in the peace process. If the humanitarian aspect of this offensive isn’t given some serious thought and the offensive starts without the necessary preparations, the SDF risks losing international political standing since it would look like they won't be able to support all these people. It could also provide the opportunity for the Assad-coalition or Turkey to open a new front and engulf this whole part of the country back into chaos.

The offensive for Raqqa has started and there is no doubt that the city will fall eventually. What the consequences will be in the long term for the SDF and the region is something time will only tell…



= = = = = = = = 

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.

Note: this is an article that was written for a small editoral office in Brussels on a voluntary basis for the Kurdish Institute's bimonthly publication of The Kurds, issue n° 95, May-June 2017

the original Dutch version is also present on my blog)
URL: http://www.kurdishinstitute.be/de-keerzijde-van-het-raqqa-offensief-bart-rombouts/

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.