Indian Defence Review

There are other minority groups, such as Syrian Kurds and Druze, who have either continued their support of Assad or have resisted the urge to join elements of the protest movement for similar reasons. Though Sunnis (59 percent of the population) account for the overwhelming majority of Syrian opposition to the Assad regime, there are other Sunnis within the ruling Baath Party’s rank and file that would have few prospects in a post-Assad Syria and so have not opposed the status quo. The country’s Sunni merchant class and business community, located mainly in Aleppo and Damascus, have also remained largely on the sidelines of the rebels, fearful of the socioeconomic vacuum that an abrupt change in leadership would create. Kurds, also Sunnis, add to another nine percent of the population, but being different from the Arab Sunnis, have been more comfortable with Assad.

Importantly, the Assad regime has not supported any terrorist activities aimed at the Western countries for decades.  It never supported Al-Qaeda and had nothing to do with 9-11. A significant fraction of the anti-Assad rebels do have ties to Al-Qaeda and have attracted foreign jihadis. And these rebels are being funded now by the Western countries. What an irony!  In fact, by planning to invade Syria, the Americans and their Western allies look a confused lot because they really cannot explain who’s fighting whom there in the Middle East. It is instructive in this context to point out how a letter to the editor in the Financial Times, now going viral on the internet, has managed to explain it all in a few paragraphs:

Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi(of Egypt).

But Gulf states are pro Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.

However, one may venture to cite some hard facts that may explain the American decision towards Syria. The Assad regime, to begin with, is a collateral victim of the American policy in the sense that America’s real enemy happens to be Iran, which, happens to be Syria’s greatest ally in the region after Russia. Here, the religious dimensions have aggravated the issue further. Both Iran and Syria happen to be ruled by the Shias, whereas Saudi Arabia, which has promoted Islamic fundamentalism all over the world, wants the Sunnis, who constitute the majority in Syria to rule the country.  Secondly, there is that factor of oil politics. Qatar and Saudi Arabia want to kill the proposed Iran-Iraq- Syria gas line that will transfer gas from Iran to Europe directly from the Lebanon coast. Because, by so doing, Qatar will be selling gas to Europe via the alternate pipeline trough Iraq and Turkey. The Americans bless this Qatar–Iraq-Turkey route, as this would be linked with the US backed Nabucco pipeline, carrying gas supplies from the Central Asian Republics. Besides, it will lessen the dependence of Europe on Russian gas.

But now the question is:  in pursuing its geopolitical goal if the US (and the West) attacks Syria, will it earn an easy victory?  The answer is a big “No”. Syria is no Libya or for that matter Kosovo, where the NATO forces earned victory through bombings from air, without placing their troops on the ground. The Western countries want to enforce massive air bombings on Syria but reluctant to send their ground troops there, something they did in Iraq and Afghanistan at a huge loss of men and materials. But then Syria has a great air force, perhaps the best in the region, with long-range S-300 surface-to-air missiles, Russian Pant­syr-S1 and Buk-M2 systems that bolster its air defences. Assad’s military may have prob­lems with old systems. But it, thanks to the Russian support, is still formidable enough. Syria has five times more air defence systems some of which are high-end systems. The Syrian army has roughly 50,000 person­nel, not including the paramilitary Shabiha that operate outside of the conventional mili­tary chain of command. If the war gets prolonged, Assad is guaranteed of the additional support of Iran and Hezbollah in nearby Lebanon.

Secondly, with no ground troops, America and its allies will increasingly depend on the Syrian rebels. But then the fact remains that these rebels do not constitute a uniform group; they are high­ly factionalised and divided across multiple fronts and fighting groups. Broadly speaking, the anti- Assad groups are organised into three primary fronts: the moderate Supreme Military Council (SMC), which is led by General Salim Idriss and was organised by Western(American) and Arab states but has only a nominal presence within Syria;  two Islamist fronts called  the Syrian Is­lamic Front and the Syrian Liberation Front. These two contain many jihadist groups, including the most potent al-Nus­ra. There are also at least nine different military groups currently active in Syria, only some of which are affiliated with the SMC: Jabhat al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, Farouq Battalions, Liwa al-Tawhid, Saqour al-Sham, Ansar al-Is­lam, Ahfad al-Rasul, Ghurabaa, and the Dem­ocratic Union Party. The point is that these rebel groups suffer from the problems of com­mand and control.

No wonder why the Pentagon, not to speak of the growing public opinion in the West, is not enthusiastic for a direct assault on Syria, which may expand the war front involving Iran and Russia.

All this is not to suggest that one should close one’s eyes to what is happening in Syria. The best way to cut “the Syrian knot” is to strive for peace and a negotiated political settlement under intense international pressure short of war and with the principle of give and take. But this is something that will happen by involving President Assad, not eliminating him. Under the pretext of ending Alawite genocide, the world is not prepared for the emergence of a monster called jihadist Syria.