by Wayne White
Amidst rumors that Washington finally decided to provide arms at least to selected Syrian opposition fighters, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the US would do little more than increase its non-lethal aid to the opposition. Rebel disappointment has been intense, and such limited assistance will not [...]]]>
by Wayne White
Amidst rumors that Washington finally decided to provide arms at least to selected Syrian opposition fighters, Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the US would do little more than increase its non-lethal aid to the opposition. Rebel disappointment has been intense, and such limited assistance will not have a major impact on the military effectiveness of the opposition or hasten an end to the fighting.
Last week Secretary Kerry said there would be an increase in non-lethal aid to the opposition, with rebel fighters gaining access to military rations and medical supplies. A US official clarified that this aid would only go to carefully vetted rebel groups, with Kerry emphasizing that opposition elements “sharing our values must set an example” by avoiding regime-like brutality and Islamic extremism. In defense of this limited assistance, the US Central Command’s General James Mattis told the Senate this week that the situation inside Syria is currently too complicated for the provision of lethal aid. Finally, earlier this week in a news conference in Qatar (which is believed to be providing munitions to the rebels), Kerry acknowledged that others are doing so, but with “greater guarantees” that arms and ammunition are reaching only moderate groups.
Meanwhile, the European Union upped the ante a bit more than the US by allowing its Syria sanctions to permit the supply of armored vehicles and non-lethal military equipment to opposition combatants if the aim is to protect civilians. Likewise, just yesterday the British seemed to move in step with the EU in saying the UK would provide armored vehicles, body armor and training, though still deeming this assistance as non-lethal.
In parallel to recent Western decisions related to such aid, UN Syrian peace envoy Lahkdar Brahimi, the French, the Russians and the US, have been discussing various seemingly vague notions of bringing representatives of the opposition together with those of the regime in an attempt to end the fighting. The regime now says it is willing to do so, but the rebels, overall, have held back. A pro-Assad Russia clearly views any Western aid to the rebels as disruptive in this context, but efforts aimed at some sort of negotiated solution have been going on for quite some time without any tangible progress.
Predictably, with far higher expectations of Western aid, the opposition has been appalled. In a news conference in Rome with Kerry, the embittered president of the Syrian opposition’s Syrian National Coalition, Moaz al-Khatib, said: “Many sides…focus (more) on the length of the rebel fighter’s beard than the blood of the children being killed.” A rebel commander in the battered northern city of Aleppo also said that lack of arms was the main obstacle to victory over the regime, but rebel fighters had to go on fighting without waiting for such assistance.
Ironically, had there been a decision by the US, the UK and the EU to provide arms to selected, relatively more moderate opposition combatants, even that might not have provided the rebels with a decisive military boost. After over two years of regime brutality, heavy fighting and widespread destruction, large numbers of opposition fighters have been radicalized and many extremist jihadists have entered Syria to join the fight against the Assad regime. For some time now, Muslim extremist rebel groups have been leading the fight and inflicting the most damage on the regime. So supplying moderates exclusively might do little to assist those who have become the proverbial “tip of the spear” in the uprising’s most important battles.
Even prior to this disappointment opposition leaders in exile — but especially rebel fighters and Syrian civilians supporting the uprising inside the country — had become steadily more embittered by two years of Western hand-wringing over providing military help. And no wonder: while caution and indecision has reigned in Western capitals, the death toll in Syria has reportedly reached 70,000 and the number of Syrian refugees in neighboring countries reportedly just topped one million.
Regime forces continue to fight back desperately (and with characteristic brutality) despite assaults by rebel groups in every Syrian province. And, making this violence more like the civil war it has been labeled as by many, the Assad regime still may retain the loyalty of a substantial slice of the population. Of the estimated 12-13% of the populace that is Alawite (Assad’s own community) or vaguely similar Shi’a, most back the regime. Likewise, a large majority of the 10% of Syrians who are Christian have stood by the regime in fear of Muslim extremism. Ethnic Kurds — around 8-9% of the population — have been wary of both sides, providing rebels with only limited help. And, finally, even a minority of Syria’s large Sunni Arab majority is too vested in the regime militarily, in its security services, various businesses, or like-mindedly secular to break with it in the face of a potential Islamist takeover.
So it is possible that maybe as much as 40-45% of the population either has not joined the opposition or potentially represents a pool of manpower and support for Assad’s forces. Continued support for the regime in some important quarters remains a daunting challenge for the rebels, especially since many within pro-regime constituencies are fighting hard alongside the regime because they believe — perhaps with good reason at this point — that they would suffer greatly if the rebels prevail.
The upshot of the latest decision on the part of the US and the West to hold back on precisely what rebels battling inside Syria need most (whether justified or not) is the inevitable prolongation of the mayhem that has been progressively destroying Syria.
Photo: Women walk past destoryed shops in Al Qusayr, Syria. Credit: Sam Tarling/IPS.
]]>The UN High Commission for Human Rights now believes 60,000 Syrians have been killed since March 2011 (far more than claimed by the Syrian opposition) and that death rates have been rising more sharply of late. Given the situation on the ground and the continuing failure of diplomacy, the bloody human [...]]]>
The UN High Commission for Human Rights now believes 60,000 Syrians have been killed since March 2011 (far more than claimed by the Syrian opposition) and that death rates have been rising more sharply of late. Given the situation on the ground and the continuing failure of diplomacy, the bloody human toll in Syria — along with far broader suffering and privation – will probably increase before the grueling tug of war between the regime and the opposition draws to a conclusion in one way or another.
The last weekend of 2012 saw an especially severe spike in casualties with government forces counterattacking in the Damascus area, Homs/Hama in central Syria, and Aleppo in the north. Even heavier regime airpower was brought to bear. This contrasted with vigorous opposition advances in recent weeks. It appears that after weeks of sustained offensive operations, some important rebel units ran short of munitions, despite earlier captures of improved weapons and ammunition from government military facilities. Sensing a slackening of pressure, the regime evidently sought to take advantage of the situation by launching a desperate effort to reclaim a few pieces of lost ground and perhaps even wrest some of the initiative from the rebels.
Yet, given the continuing toll on the regime’s own military assets and its inability to replenish its troop losses as readily as those of the rebels, any government gains are likely to be short-lived, especially as rebel forces regroup and resupply themselves once again. Indeed, even as airstrikes have been pounding rebel positions around Damascus in particular, opposition fighters have been closing in on two Syrian air bases farther north. The regime’s growing international isolation and shortages of basic supplies to satisfy the needs of the population (even within the government’s shrunken holdings) suggests it remains at an overall disadvantage regardless.
It should come as no surprise for backers of UN and Arab League representative Lahkdar Brahimi’s most recent initiative that his truce offer has been spurned by the opposition (and not unexpectedly encouraged by an increasingly beleaguered Assad regime). In fact, the choice of Moscow as a venue for talks was especially off-putting for the rebels because, as has been seen, the opposition views Russia as one of the two premier supporters of the Assad regime.
The bottom line is that a sort of Catch-22 situation is continuing on the diplomatic front: the side that believes it has the upper hand and will eventually prevail militarily (currently the opposition) is unlikely to accept a truce because a ceasefire would interfere with its ability to sustain intense military pressure on the other side. Only a prolonged, costly stalemate — not seen in quite a while — might interest both sides in calling at least a temporary halt to the bloodletting.
Meanwhile, failing the defection of substantial army units to the rebels, the fighting is likely to remain fierce — even desperate. From time to time, the rebels capture government caches of better weapons, and that will continue, giving them a somewhat more even playing field against regime forces. Those Syrians (most Alawites, many Christians, as well as a minority of Sunni Arabs who have benefited from the regime) will fight bitterly, fearing a rebel (or even militant Islamic) victory would overturn their world as they know it, perhaps even endangering their own families or entire sectarian communities. And, the longer the bloodletting continues in terms of time, sheer violence, atrocities, and total casualties, the more the amount of retribution — both authorized and spontaneous — will mount for those who have chosen, essentially, to fight for the regime right up, or close, to the bitter end.
Photo: Wojtek Ogrodowczyk/Flickr
]]>