Later today, Russian President Vladimir Putin will speak at the
70th UN General Assembly,
where he is expected to try to talk more than 150 of the world’s
leaders into joining his anti-IS-alliance. It is based on the claim
that the only way to end the civil war in Syria is through support for
Bashar al-Assad and the military defeat of IS. Unfortunately, a growing number of
governments seem to
agree with this notion. Their cruelest joke: Assad should be part of a government of
national unity. Our policy-makers have to be reminded that
Assad is the source of the problem, not the solution. And here is why:
1. Assad capacitated the jihadists
Every politician who is eager to contribute his or her opinion on the current crisis in Syria should not forget where the problem began. I’m not talking about the US invasion of Iraq, that is a different chapter. I’m speaking about how the Assad regime reacted to it. Like other governments in the region it was worried to be the next in line for America’s noble liberation of the oppressed. It was therefore crucial to keep the United States’ attention on maintaining order in Iraq. Assad found an easy and effective way to do so. Fortunately his prisons were filled with islamist extremists, who used their time of incarceration in what is often dubbed “jihadist university” to get further radicalised. Assad realised that these Sunni radicals, if used wisely, could be an asset rather than a menace. His plan was cunning: he sent them over the border into neighbouring Iraq, where they joined insurgent organisations like al-Qaida in Iraq to unleash the powers of hell upon the American crusaders. Unfortunately, the jihadists did not stop with their unleashing-business once the infidels had left. Instead of celebrating the victory, they intensified their attacks on the Iraqi government and gained a strong momentum in western and northern parts of the country, which would subsequently allow them to spread back into Syria as well.
 |
| Military situation as of 21 September 2015, in the Iraqi, Syrian, and Lebanese conflicts. Source: Wikipedia |
2. Assad started the civil war
Despite Assad’s constant assertions of innocence, everybody knows how the Syrian Civil War really started. Inspired by the (now long withered) Arab Spring, Syrians claimed their fair share of reform and civil rights. The Syrian regime was, however, unwilling to comply but instead resorted to brutal crackdowns, massive arrests and military attacks. Unsurprisingly, the demands soon shifted from reforms to the removal of the regime, which in turn deployed even more soldiers to regain control of the situation. Of course we all know how that worked out. Large defections from the Syrian Army followed, and soon the civil uprising transformed into an armed conflict that killed a quarter of a million people and displaced half the Syrian population.
 |
| Wounded civilians arrive at a hospital in Aleppo. Source: Scott Bobb |
3. Assad nurtured the Islamic State
Assad knew one thing from the beginning, one thing that runs afoul of most peoples’ intuition: jihadists are his life-insurance. Killing your own people is a murderous crime, but if some of the rebels are islamist terrorists (or all, as he tries to make the world believe), crushing them with undaunted determination is a noble quest. And even though the world by and large agrees that Assad is a contemptible bugger, many start to think that his regime is the last stronghold that stands between us and jihadist armageddon. Syrian rebels, however, who have the opportunity to take a rather in-dept look on the civil war, make a slightly different experience. A common joke among them is to speak of “Daesh’s air force” when
Syrian aircrafts approach to drop their bombs on the positions of other rebel groups.
Research clearly shows that regime forces and IS literally ignore each other on the battlefield and instead focus on (rather) moderate rebels. And it makes sense: in Assad’s perspective, the moderate opposition groups are the much bigger threat because they could actually gain international recognition, while there is no danger that IS will ever achieve that. So fighting moderate rebels while aiding IS is Assad’s best policy option, at least in the short run. Once he succeeds, his claims that he is merely fighting jihadists will actually come true. Should we really play his game?
4. For most Syrians, Assad is the bigger threat
If we believe our news stations, the brutality of the self-proclaimed Islamic State is unmet in Syria or anywhere else. Well, not so fast. Indeed, the murderous IS hordes have committed unspeakable atrocities and continue to do so. They regularly execute their opponents, including fellow jihadists from different factions, and even innocent aid workers and journalists. They destroy or sell historic treasures and implement a reign of terror. However, with this in mind, we should not forget what the Assad regime is
doing. Remember back: during the first year of the civil war, media coverage on the government’s human rights abuses was very intense. We heard about the regime’s massive arrest, torture and killing campaigns and about barrel bombs thrown into residential areas (which, by the way,
kill more civilians than IS and al-Qaida combined). And let’s also not forget about the sarin gas attacks. All in all, the regime has caused
far more civilian suffering than all rebel groups combined, and it continues to do so. Nevertheless, it is IS that boasts with its cruel executions, while the regime’s barrel bombs keep on raining down, by now largely unnoticed. But the Syrians know better. They know what they are fleeing from, and most of them are indeed fleeing from Assad’s forces and their indiscriminate shelling and killing. While we worry about IS, the Syrian regime continues to bomb its people back to the Stone Age. For example, Assad’s forces are responsible for over 90% of the 307 attacks on medical facilities.
 |
| Two destroyed tanks in front of a mosque in Azaz, Syria. Source: Christiaan Triebert |
5. Accepting and even supporting Assad is propaganda for IS and other jihadists
The majority of Syrians despise the Islamic State as much as they hate the Assad regime, but these days many are forced to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea. They know that IS and other jihadist groups pose a major threat, but they also haven’t forgotten the many atrocities committed by Assad’s forces. Unsurprisingly, there hasn’t been a loud outcry in the Muslim world when Western powers and Gulf states launched air strikes against IS. This would rapidly change, however, once they start to cooperate with Assad. It all comes down to a simple question: if the Islamic State is defeated (however that will look like), what’s next? Will the world switch sides again to fight alongside the moderate rebels against Assad? Probably not. Or the alternative: finishing the job, crushing the rebellion and helping Assad to reestablish the status quo. The mere prospect of this scenario is a punch in the face of Assad’s countless victims. I believe that, if the world takes Assad’s side, many Syrians will not be amused. On the contrary, they will feel like the world's most powerful nations are playing a cruel joke: “First they leave us to our fate and watch deedlessly while Assad is destroying our homes and killing our families and friends, and now they even help him?!”, many will think. And who could judge them? But consider the consequences: accepting Assad, maybe even entering the civil war on his side would send a strong signal to the Sunni world, and a very negative one that is. The radicalising effects of such a message can only be imagined.
 |
| Fighters belonging to the Islamic State group in Anbar, Iraq |
6. The majority of Syrians will never accept a government that includes Assad
After more than four years of, let’s face it, sectarian warfare between the regime’s Alawite minority (supported by its Shia allies from Lebanon and Iran) and Syria’s Sunni majority, during which, as discussed, both sides committed countless gruesome atrocities, all the trust is gone, probably for good. Alawites fear that the collapse of the regime will leave them at the mercy of groups like IS (not a very inspiring thought, think of what happened to the
Yazidi), while Sunnis are afraid that Assad’s victory will expose them to his bloody-minded revenge. For this very reason, all rebel groups have unanimously
asserted that they will under no circumstances accept a Syria with Assad. But why would the international community care about what Syrians say? Since when do we consider the realities on the ground when we draft the future of a nation?
7. There is an alternative to national unity
One year ago I
wrote
about why Iraq's national reconciliation is heading for yet another
collision. Since then, nothing much has changed; the country is as far
from any sort of national reconciliation as it was back then. It puzzles me why, despite
these uninspiring results, more and more governments consider this
dysfunctional policy as the long-awaited solution for the Syrian Civil
War. Believe it or not, a western style, unified nation state is not the solution to all the world’s problems. Iraq has definitely experienced a whole lot of violence in the aftermath of the US invasion, but what’s going on in Syria constitutes a whole new dimension. Whoever seriously believes that Syria could achieve during civil war what Iraq is failing to accomplish with American help, i.e. to form a government that is accepted by the vast majority of its people and that, to top it all, includes the vicious mind responsible for the whole mess, must be either profoundly naïve or immune to lessons from the past. Fortunately, there is an alternative to national unity, one that I think would also solve many of Iraq's problems: division. I know, it is a very unpopular term, but now that everything broke apart already I don't see why Kurds and Arabs, Shia and Sunni should be forced to live together under one government.
 |
| Vladimir Putin in the cabin of strategic bomber ТU-160 |
The world has failed to support the moderate rebels while there was time. With this option off the table, there is not much left that can be done. Bombing the Islamic State will weaken them for a while, but let’s be honest, we do it to silence our conscience and because we don’t know what else to do. And that is OK, because, sad to say, there is not much that can be done. Russia’s President Putin appears to be lunatic enough to send his troops into Syria's bloody hell, where their bullets will certainly not distinguish between moderate rebels and jihadists. Well, good luck chap, knock yourself out! For the rest of us: let’s not play Assad’s game. There is absolutely nothing to gain from taking anyone’s side in the Syrian Civil War. Instead, let’s stop the flow of arms and ammunition into Syria, let’s
help the Syrian refugees and support their host countries. It kills me that there is nothing else we can do, but sometimes life’s a b*tch, and that’s that.
