What are we doing here?

US Policy in Syria or Lack Thereof

            When researching this post, I had some trouble finding a clear explanation of what America is doing in Syria. The simplest and perhaps morally clearest answer is that we are in Syria to save lives. Thus far, however, we have signally failed to do so. Bashar Assad launches artillery and air strikes on cities and towns without even a pretense of aiming at military targets. Jihadist rebels behead civilians and innocents with impunity, including one of their own on at least one occasion (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/middleeast/beheading-in-syria-is-called-a-mistake.html?_r=0). America does nothing. Only when chemical weapons are used to murder hundreds of civilians does America threaten to intervene. Aha- perhaps America’s goal is to prevent the proliferation and use of these hideous weapons? But in that case, why have we failed to prevent the numerous small-scale chemical weapons uses over the course of the war? Even more telling, why are we training and arming groups of rebels in Jordan whose only stated goal is to topple Assad and have no interest in containing chemical weapons? However, if we are actually attempting to topple Assad, as our support of these groups would suggest, why haven’t we intervened more directly? The aforementioned chemical attacks and humanitarian abuses provide a ready excuse to establish a no-fly zone, at the very least; that is, if the American people were willing to make that commitment.

                And that, I believe, is the source of the contradictory objectives in Syria. The people would like to see the humanitarian abuses but are unwilling to expend American lives on doing so. They want Assad gone but are unwilling to become embroiled in another Iraq or Afghanistan. But the current conflicting approaches provide the worst of both worlds. By lending our name to the Syrian opposition we allow our enemies to paint every Assad victory and indeed the very survival of the regime as a victory against the overwhelming might of the United States. The longer we stand with our toes in the water, the more brutal Assad will be and the less palatable the opposition will become. Yet the humanitarian crisis will only deepen, making it harder to back out entirely.

And the American people will complain innocently about our loss of prestige and respect abroad.

Either get in or get out.

Where’s the Money?

Sources of funding and influence in the Syrian Conflict

1.       The Assad Regime

A)     Iran/Hezbollah: Iran and its regional ally, Hezbollah, have always been staunch backers of the Assad regime. However, they have recently become active participants in the war as well. In June a battle that was internationally seen as signifying a change in momentum from the rebels to the regime was fought over the strategic town of Qusayr. However, the battle was planned and fought in large part by Hezbollah, under orders from Iran.

B)      Russia: Syria is Russia’s only remaining ally in the middle east, as well providing its last naval base there. Accordingly, Russia has provided everything short of overt military involvement, including weapons sales and U.N. assistance. Interestingly, however, Russia cooperated with the U.S. on destroying Assad’s chemical weapons.

2.       The Rebels

A)     Saudi Arabia/Qatar: Saudi Arabia and Qatar are Iran’s regional rivals. While Iran arms and supports the Shiite Assad regime Saudi Arabia and Qatar fund several Sunni Islamist rebel groups, although they have not yet directly involved themselves militarily. Funds come from both governments and private individuals, with governments outwardly supporting more moderate groups and individual funds flowing to more radical Jihadists, including Al-Qaeda affiliates.

B)      Al Qaeda: Al-Qaeda supports several Sunni militias in Syria, most notably Jahbat Al-Nusra (The Nusra Front). Additionally, the Al-Qaeda affiliate ISIL (The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) is actively fighting in Syria and in fact attempted to merge with the Nusra front before the merger was rejected by the leaders of the Nusra front and mainstream Al-Qaeda.

C)      The U.S.: Although America does not have a direct stake in the civil war (outside of ensuring thsat chemical weapons do not fall into the wrong hands), it opposes the Assad regime for humanitarian reasonsAmerica has not intervened directly in the conflict, especially as the opposition has gone from largely secular to increasingly Islamicized. However, it has provided assistance, arms and training to the rebels, with funds being funneled through the Syrian National Council (a secular government-in-exile) and the Free Syrian Army (the largest moderate/secular group rebel militia).