Choosing the Known Devil in Desperation
By Gwynne Dyer
27 May 2015
The least bad option before the US is to bail out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian Army’s morale has begun to crumble. The consequences can be bad
The fall of Ramadi to the Islamic State troops on May 20 was not a big deal. The city was deep inside the ISIS-held territory, ISIS fighters had controlled 80 per cent of it since March, and we already knew that the Iraqi Army can’t fight. Even so, the Islamic State is not going to take much more of Iraq. What it doesn’t already hold is either Shia or just not Arab at all (Kurdistan), and that is not fertile ground for Sunni Arab fanatics.
The fall of Palmyra on May 22 was a very big deal, because it was clear evidence that the Syrian Army’s morale is starting to crumble. It was doing quite well until last summer and even regaining ground from the insurgents, but the tide has now turned. After every defeat and retreat, it gives up more easily at the next stop. It may be too late already, but at best, the Syrian regime is now in the last chance saloon.
The Syrian Army is very tired and short of manpower after four years of war, but what is really making the difference is that the insurgents are now united in two powerful groups rather than being split into dozens of bickering fragments. Unfortunately, both of those groups are Islamist fanatics.
The Islamic State and the Al Nusra Front are both takfiri groups who believe that Muslims who do not follow their own extreme version of Sunni Islam are ‘apostates’, not real Muslims, and that they deserve to be killed. Around one-third of Syria’s population are ‘apostates’ by this definition — Alawites, other Shias, and Druze — and they are all at great risk.
True, the Al Nusra Front has been less outspoken about its intentions than the Islamic State, but that’s just a question of timing and tactics. The basic ideology is the same, and the Al Nusra Front in power would be committed by its own religious beliefs to exactly the same murderous ‘cleansing’ of the population. When religious fanatics tell you they intend to do something, it is wise to take them seriously.
An Islamist victory in Syria could entail the death of millions. It would also cause panic in the neighbouring Arab countries, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Yet no nearby Arab country will put troops into Syria to stop the looming disaster, because they cannot imagine fighting fellow Sunnis in Syria, however extreme their doctrine, in order to save the Shia regime of Bashar al-Assad.
You don’t get the choices you would like to have. You only get the choices that are on the table, even if you are the President of the world’s only superpower. At this point President Barack Obama has only two options: Save the Syrian regime, or let it go under and live with the consequences.
It’s not even clear that Mr Obama can save it. He cannot and should not put American troops on the ground in Syria, but he could provide military and economic aid to the Syrian regime — and, more importantly, put the US airpower at the service of the Syrian Army.
Even that might not save Bashar al-Assad’s regime, but it would certainly help the morale of the Army and the two-thirds of the population that still lives under his rule. With more and better weapons and US air support, the Syrian Army might be able to catch its breath and regain its balance. It would be a gamble, and if Mr Obama did that he would be alienating two major allies, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. But if he doesn’t do it, very bad things may follow.
Mr Obama may have as little as a couple of months to come to terms with reality and make a decision. Waiting until the Syrian regime is already falling, to intervene, is not a good option; decision time is now. His reluctance to decide is entirely understandable, but rescuing Bashar al-Assad is the least bad option.
URL: