Between a rock and a hard place - The West and the Syrian Civil War (Part I)

Early next year the Syrian Civil War will enter its fourth year. According to the UN more than 120,000 individuals were killed since its beginning and an estimated 6.5 million are displaced. The effects the war has on the country are tremendous. Syria will probably never be the same country as it was some years ago. The hatred among the different religious sects seems impossible to overcome, too sharp are the divides between the fractions after years of brutal and merciless war. All sides of the Syrian Civil War (there are more than two by now) have committed terrible warcrimes of which the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against its own people, killing almost 1,500 civilians, constituted the sad climax.

The Western nations did not dare to act when the civil war started and they remained passive when the Syrian opposition asked for help. It was only in September 2013, after two and a half years of civil war that the US started delivering arms and other equipment to the rebels. In addition, President Assad agreed to destroy all chemical weapons in Syria with foreign help.

It is important to notice that the chemical arsenal the Assad regime kept is by no means an adequate tool to fight the Syrian rebels. In fact, when the US government learned of the use of nerve gas by the Assad regime it was not far from attacking positions of the Syrian Armed Forces similar to the air-support for rebels in the Libyan Civil War. The chemical weapons arsenal, built up over the course of four decades (but publicly denied by the Syrian government until September 2013) served a very different purpose.

As one can see in the case of Iran or North Korea, the western world is watching very closely when a state is maintaining a nuclear program, especially when that state has interests that stand in opposition to the interests of its neighbors or the West. A much cheaper and politically risk-free way to achieve a certain level of threat-potential as well as deterrence are chemical weapons. In the case of Syria, the government was not only not hindered from purchasing chemicals that could be used in the production of nerve gas, the UK and Germany even supported their efforts.

Syria's chemical weapons were meant to threat and deter its neighbors, especially Israel. But of what use would they be if Assad’s government would be overthrown by the rebels with the help of US airstrikes? The sacrifice of Syria’s chemical weapons was a smart move since their value for Assad is limited and because their destruction probably saved his army from painful losses. The fact that the West accepted the deal - not responding to the use of nerve gas against civilians by (elements of) the Assad regime for the destruction of all (remaining) chemical weapons - was the last of many punches in the face of the rebellion. With or without chemical weapons, the Syrian government would not have allowed the use of nerve gas again since the threats of a US military intervention were far too real. The Syrian rebels and civilians suffered from the chemical attack, but they did get nothing in return. The West turned its back on them again. Where lies President Obama’s, or as he now calls it, the world’s red line, if it is not crossed yet?

The reason why the West was reluctant to support the rebellion with arms and other materiel was the fear that it would end up in the wrong hands, e.g. in the hands of terrorists. After almost three years of fierce civil war in which the rebels were in a sink or swim situation, this fears has eventually become quite real. Frustrated by the lack of support from the democratic world, more and more rather secular fighters looked for new horizons. Jihadist organizations, most notably the two al-Qaeda-aligned groups Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) gain foothold in the territory controlled by the rebels. In many towns and villages the islamists black flag can be seen flying next to the three-stared flag of the Free Syrian Army. In others it has already replaced it.

The growing influence of jihadist groups in Syria changes the situation radically. The brutal but secular Assad regime does not seem to be the greatest threat to the interests of the West any more. But what can be done? In the second part I will outline the possible outcomes of the Syrian Civil War and explore the options of the West.

Mikhail Kalashnikov and moral responsibility

Two days ago, on December 23rd, Mikhail Kalashnikov, creator of the AK-47 died in his hometown of Izhevsk. His rifle was sold more than 100 million times, one out of six small arms worldwide is a Kalashnikov rifle. It is arguably responsible for the deaths of more people in battle than weapons of mass destruction of the chemical, biological and nuclear variety. The Kalashnikov rifle is a symbol for rebellion, civil war and terror. Confronted with this, Mikhail Kalashnikov replied: “I created a weapon to defend the fatherland’s borders. It’s not my fault that it was sometimes used where it shouldn’t have been. This is the fault of politicians”.

His statement appears to be quite cynical, but is it really? From a pacifistic perspective it most certainly is, for any weapon is a tool of war. But given that his fatherland was under attack and had to be defended against ruthless invaders, pacifism was off the table. As a soldier in the Great Patriotic War (as the Soviet propaganda called the Eastern Front of World War II) who personally experienced the superiority of the first assault rifles - especially the Nazi-German Sturmgewehr 44 - over carabiners (unfortunately on the wrong end of the muzzle), his ambition to create a small arm that would be able to counter the enemy's firepower is quite understandable. 

Is it morally wrong to create a weapon? That might depend on several factors:

• The weapon's purpose 
• The weapon's extend of destruction 
• The type of wounds the weapon causes 
• The likelihood of abuses from its intended purpose
• etc.

Mikhail Kalashnikov, the passionate communist and patriot, wanted to use his technical skills to enable his homeland to defend itself against current and future threats and aggressions. Unfortunately, his weapon was not only the answer to the lack of assault rifles in the Soviet stockpiles, but it became a means of politics for the communist regime he invented it for. The USSR equipped not only itself and its Warsaw Pact allies, but also other friendly regimes, self-proclaimed communist autocrats, rebel groups and independence fighters all over the globe. The purpose he intended for the AK-47 was a different one than what the UDSSR regime had in mind with his invention. But not even they could foresee the extend of destruction that the Kalashnikov rifle would create.

It is difficult to imagine that Mikhail Kalashnikov intended his invention to become the single most deadly WMD in the world. It was supposed to become the answer to a great threat on the battlefield and to defend his fatherland in the future. In my opinion, Mikhail Kalashnikov, the 17th child of peasants in eastern Russia, can hardly be hold responsible for not foreseeing the widespread misuse of his AK-47 that we witness today. 

On a visit to Germany in 2002, Mikhail Kalashnikov said: "I'm proud of my invention, but I'm sad that it is used by terrorists, I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower."

----------------------------------

I am currently reading a very comprehensive book about the background and social history of the Kalashnikov rifle, C.J. Chivers' The Gun. It covers a variety of topics, spanning from the invention of the first  rapid-fire weapons to the impact of AK-47 proliferation on modern battlefields. The author also has a frequently updated blog.