There has been no shortage of Syrian news coverage in recent weeks. However, there remains a lack of logic and coherence to the words of politicians and journalists on the subject of intervention.
The general condemnation of the Syrian regime’s brutality is, of course, justified. But there are too many assumptions underpinning the arguments about ‘what next?’ and ‘why?’. My belief, set-out so many times previously, is that military intervention can only escalate the conflict.
More specifically, I am yet to be convinced that:
1.The use of chemical weapons can definitively be traced back to the regime
2.Chemical weapons have not been used by the opposition
3.There is any degree of moderation within the opposition
4.Within this knot of geo-political interests, sectarian conflict and civil war, enough attention is being paid to the peaceful majority of Syrians and their chances of living in a free and democratic country
At a global level, handshakes and forced smiles at the G20 summit failed to hide the growing enmity between the US and Russia. Moscow had previously announced its “West-2013” Russian-Belarusian war games. Brussels responded with its own “Steadfast Jazz” operation. Russian and US warships have subsequently sailed towards the Syrian coast (one of the Russian vessels is a Landing ship carrying ‘Special Cargo’) and Vladimir Putin has stated categorically that he will support the Syrian regime if required. In addition to the existing missile systems exported to Syria, he announced that, “if we see international law being violated, we will reconsider our future actions, including supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world”.
Iran was not mentioned specifically, but the link is clear. Supported by Russia, any Western resolution of her nuclear programme would become impossible. Perhaps that is why Tehran’s daily quota of threats is rising, stemming from all of its political and military leaders who insist that they will fight to the end to save the ‘perfect’ alliance with Lebanon, Iraq and Syria. Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has added that he will personally fight alongside the Syrian regime if required.
In this context it is hard to see how President Obama’s ‘shot across the bows’ could achieve anything in the direction of peace.
The debates in Westminster, Paris and Washington have instigated much naval gazing about the influence of respective foreign policies, the West’s role as the world’s policeman, and the drawing of ‘red lines’. This makes for great political intrigue (and press copy) but becomes more removed daily from the reality of what is happening in and around Syria.
Let’s not forget that it is now two and a half years since the peaceful demonstrations against the regime were hijacked by extremist groups and since Sheikh Luhaidan, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Council in Saudi Arabia, called for Jihad against the Alawites even if one third of the population died in the process.
In the subsequent weeks and months, many senior and influential Clerics, including the Grand Muftis of Saudi Arabia and Sheikh Qaradawi have called for Jihad against a series of minorities within Syria, a country once renowned for its liberal attitudes and mosaic of ethnicities living in harmony.
This incitement to violence has taken place in an environment where the political and military wings of the internal opposition to the regime have become increasingly extremist. I have recently written about the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) in Qatar and its management by the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists. This stems from the top down.
Meanwhile, President Obama has made recent reference to the ‘moderation’ of the rebels. One can only assume that he has been poorly briefed. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) is simply an umbrella of Islamist groups. General Idris said he is happy to fight alongside the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ and ‘Al-Nusra’. Its Supreme Military Council exclusively comprises Salafi extremist groups. Idris estimates the numbers of extremists within rebel forces at 50%. Congressman Michael McCaul, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, agrees, stating that 50% of the Syrian opposition has extremist elements. NBC news has recently quoted a senior U.S military official quoting Pentagon, estimating that Islamist groups now constitute “more than 50 percent” of the rebel force, “and it’s growing by the day.” Which is odd, as Secretary of State, John Kerry, told the US Senate that his guess was 15%-25%.
Idris’ complicity with extremist terror was demonstrated recently in Lattakia, where eleven Alawite villages were attacked and many civilians murdered. The groups involved are listed in my previous article. They were all linked to Al-Qaeda, but far from attempting to distance himself from their actions, Idris publicly announced that he was visiting “his forces” on the front line in Lattakia.
It is no coincidence that this amalgamation of Islamist interests has encouraged the import of Jihadists from around the world. Western intelligence services estimate 6,000 foreign fighters in Syria with 10 percent from Europe, Australia, and North America. Their Arab counterparts estimate closer to 15 ,000. Jihadist sources speak of 30,000. All agree that the majority have come across from Turkey, Southeast Asia, North Africa, the Middle East, and Caucasus.
Michael Morell, second-in-command of the CIA, says that more foreign fighters are now flowing into Syria each month than there were to Iraq at the height of its own war. He believes that extreme Islamism in Syria is now the biggest threat to US National Security.
This is no surprise to those of us who read horrific accounts of rebel brutality. Domenico Quirico, an Italian war correspondent held captive by multiple armed groups in Syria, described his captors as “trusted by the West but were in truth profiting from the revolution to take over territory, hold the population to ransom, kidnap people and fill their pockets”.
And where there is extremism of this sort, atrocities are never far away. The New York Times led with a picture of rebels executing seven Syrian troops. 51 more had been murdered in cold blood after a battle for an Aleppo suburb. Alawites, Christians and Kurds have been among those attacked and killed in a escalating series of civilian massacres around the country.
Hundreds of women and children have been butchered from the town of Tal Abyad to Lattakia. I wrote in my previous article about the murder of more than 450 Kurdish civilians, of more than 200 Alawites in Latakia, and of atrocities being committed in the ancient Christian Town of Maaloula. Christians had previously been massacred in the village of Al-Duweir in Homs. Shia groups have been killed in Hatla. And yet, for some reason these incidents receive little coverage in the West, and no formal condemnation.
I could list many further atrocities and examples of human tragedy. But I’m sure the point is made. The West quite rightly wishes to curb government-sponsored violence, but this is a two-way war. A UN Report on 11 September said that both sides are committing massacres. The International Community must understand and communicate the depravity and rationale of the opposition.
Which brings me to the chemical attack on a Damascus suburb that has dominated the Syrian agenda ever since.
An objective appraisal of the evidence to date suggest that:
1.Chemical weapons were used
2.Not all the available evidence has been presented to the United Nations Security Council
3.We cannot be sure who used them or how many people were harmed (the US estimate of 1,429 fatalities against the French number of 281 and the U.K’s 350, make the atrocity no less horrific, but they do raise questions about their Syrian Intelligence. If their facts are this open to interpretation, one fears for the accuracy of their investigations into the source of the attack)
4.As President Putin has said this week, It would have been an odd time for the regime to use chemical weapons, three days after the arrival of a UN investigation team in Damascus while the war was progressing in its favour on the ground. Yossef Bodansky, the former Director of the U.S Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, has been among others to explore the question of motive in recent days
5.The possibility that a rogue element of the military could have used it
6.This is not the first time chemical weapons have been involved in the conflict – the UN, Russia and British Channel 4 have previously suggested their use by opposition groups and 12 members of Al Nusra were caught in Turkey in possession of 2kg of sarin gas
All-in-all, there is enough doubt around the origin of the weapons to suggest that we await further findings and approval from the UN Security Council. And there should be no intervention without its approval.
We must discourage any activity that could drag the West into a war, working to the advantage of Islamists. An attack would strengthen their position on the ground. And as General Dempsey put it at the end of August: “They do not support our interests”. The UN’s Paulo Pinheiro reiterated that none of the rebel groups want democracy.
Any advantage accruing to those groups will lead to a direct increase in the flow of arms and support from Iran and Russia. This will escalate the involvement of Hezbollah, Iraq and a raft of Palestinian groups. The full-scale regional war that I have been warning against for some time will be upon us.
The West is to be lauded for its concern for those harmed by the Damascus attacks. As it should be for it’s desire to outlaw chemical weapons. But air strikes are not the answer. They will simply lead to more civilian deaths, more sectarian hatred, more international tension, more power to an opposition without morals, and, ultimately, the likelihood of an allout regional war.
And there must be a more realistic appraisal of who sits within the opposition forces. During the congressional debates, Secretary of State, John Kerry was asked: “Is there any Al-Qaeda [in Syria]? There are reports they have been growing stronger.” Kerry replied: “No. I say with all responsibility: there is no [Al-Qaeda] there”. At best that represents a gross failure to listen to US Intelligence. I have already mentioned NBC’s 50% estimate of extremist forces. A new study by the defence consultancy IHS Jane’s, estimates that of 100,000 ‘opposition’ troops, there are around 10,000 jihadists (including foreign fighters) linked directly to al Qaeda, a further 35,000 radical Islamists with a purely Syrian perspective, and a further 30,000 belonging to groups with an “Islamic character”. It also estimates that the total force is split into as many as 1,000 separate bands. The overriding impression is one of chaos.
The Russian brokering of chemical disarmament in Syria is the most positive news we have had for some time. As has been the weight of global opinion against intervention. But there is no easy solution. There never has been. This situation is much too complex and multi-layered.
The only answer lies in talks, not Tomahawks. Talks that involve Russia, the US, the Syrian regime, and as many representatives of the peaceful Syrian majority as possible. There can only be a political solution and, ultimately, only a true and genuine democracy can save Syria.
