SYRIA ON THE PRECIPICE

Does the growing role of Al Qaeda aligned forces in the rebellion, and the potential use of chemical weapons by the regime, change US/Western calculations?

We posed these questions to (Syria-born) Dr. John Jandali. Here is his quick response to those questions and others that we addressed to him.

From Dr. Jandali:

The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad is still standing, though it is showing clear signs of weakness and fatigue. At the same time the rebel forces are making significant gains in controlling a large part of North and Central Syria, and are now threatening the regime’s nerve center in the capital city Damascus. Fighting has now intensified for the control of the Damascus airport, in an effort by the rebels to cut military supplies to the government.

There is ample evidence that the regime forces fighting this twenty-month old rebellion have been weakened by signficant defections, increased casualties, and low morale, while at the same time the rebels’ success in capturing a number of strategic air bases enabled them to acquire new military hardware, weapons and ammunitions, including surface to air missiles, with which they began to shoot down government fighter jets.

And now, there is fear that civil war in Syria could unleash the world’s first use of chemical weapons in nearly three decades. The Associated Press confirmed that a number of weapons in Syria were recently loaded with the nerve agent Sarin, and could be used against rebel and other civilian targets. The last time Sarin and mustard gas were used was in 1987-88, when Saddam Hussein employed these weapons on Kurds in Iraq, killing thousands.  Additionally, there is concern that some or Assad’s entire arsenal of chemical weapons could be moved to Iran or Lebanon or fall into the hands of foreign fighters with ties to terrorist groups who are helping Syrian rebels.

The US and NATO allies have been discussing the options of either securing or destroying Syria’s chemical weapons. Securing those weapons would require putting boots on the ground; probably Turkish or Jordanian forces. This is not likely to get the support of either the rebels in Syria or other interested parties in the conflict, such as Russia or Iran. On the other hand, employing air power to destroy those weapons may be the preferred option, and one which should be considered.

With Bashar Assad packing his bags and searching for a safe asylum somewhere, the US and its allies should continue their dialogue with the Russians on crafting a plan for a post Assad transition in Syria. Recent American-Russian negotiations on these issues have not been successful. However, the Russians seem to be distancing themselves from Assad, and may be open to accepting the new reality on the ground, leading to a new chapter in Syria’s political history.  I have always maintained that an ultimate resolution to the Syrian civil war requires the acquiescence of the Russians, who have been the primary backers and supporters of the Syrian regime.  It is time to press on negotiating with Russia, and with representatives of the newly formed Syrian Opposition Coalition leaders on reaching a solution for a transition plan that would pave the way for a peaceful, democratic, and inclusive new order in Syria.

The end game in Syria is near. The challenge facing the leaders of the opposition movements is to work at planning a transition that ensures continuity and stability of governmental institutions within the framework of a representative and democratic state.

John Jandali

Reno, Dec 8, 2012

Subsequent to writing the above Jandali was asked a series of follow-on questions. Here are his responses:

1. Recent reports indicate the increasing dominance of radical elements within the rebel coalition, particularly those associated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and “foreign fighters” such as the Nusra Front. Is that worrisome?

The opposition forces in Syria did not seek the assistance of the Nusra Front fighters. But they did not oppose them when they arrived to help, following the saying:” The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. I have been told that the leadership of the Free Syrian Army did not approve of some of the methods used by Nusra fighters – car bombing causing some innocent civilian casualties-, but did not want to take them on with respect to issues leading to disagreements and conflicts.

2. Are the Saudis, Turks and other Sunni powers supplying armaments to the radical elements?

The Gulf states that are channeling financial and military assistance to the opposition forces are being careful to limit the delivery of weapons to the Syrian groups, to the exclusion of radical “foreign fighters”.

3. Will the highly disciplined and radical Sunni elements soon take over the rebel coalition?

Notwithstanding the large representation of Muslim Brotherhood in the newly formed Coalition of Opposition Groups, there is no evidence to suggest that Islamists, or other radical groups, such as the Nusra Front, will prevail or dictate the future course of events in a post-Assad Syria. Of course, the Syrian people will ultimately decide the composition and type of government they want. But Syria has had a long history of secular governance, and no one expects a dramatic shift to an Islamic government, such as in Egypt, or theocratic regime, such as in Iran.

My view is that the post Assad order will be a coalition of various political and sectarian factions, and will include representations of the various ethnic and religious minorities living in Syria.

4. Given the possibility of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and the worrisome involvement of Al Qaeda associated forces, is it time for the US/NATO to become more involved with attempting to “steer” this rebellion?

Regarding US policy towards the Syrian civil war, I agree with the US stance regarding the advisability of non-intervention. However, I think the US, working with NATO allies, should waste no time in devising ways to destroy all chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria. This way, the government will not be able to use them against the population, and the fear of such weapons falling in the wrong hands will be eliminated.

 

Editor’s note: Some of our readers will no doubt favor, at least in theory, a more robust intervention approach by the US/West. Many have written such to me, but it’s usually generalities. Specifically, what would you recommend and what downsides would that likely have? Ty

 Here is a link to one thoughtful piece, this by Jim Dobbins at RAND.

 Click here: Syria, the Case for Intervention | RAND