The author of the following article explored the yet uncharted issues developing in Syria...
Washington’s “Failure” in Syria Is Not About Strategy. Washington and Ankara Have Consistently Supported Al Qaeda, ISIS
Global Research, September 14, 2016
Strategic Culture 11 September 2016
So much has been said about the Syrian conflict in numerous
analyses, yet one of the least discussed topics concerns the strategy
and the relationship of cooperation and conflict between the United
States, Turkey, the Kurds and Daesh.
From the beginning of the Syrian conflict, Washington and Ankara have
never hesitated to exploit Daesh’s advances. The occupation of Syrian
towns near the Turkish border by Islamic extremists has been one of the
preferred tactics endorsed by the United States and Turkey. Closing one
eye, often both, concerning Daesh’s operations meant attacking the
Syrian state indirectly and threatening its integrity whilst
simultaneously allowing the creation of safe havens where terrorist
groups could receive weapons and material support to spread their
attacks on the legitimate government of Damascus over the rest of the
country.
In the specific case of Turkey, there were also other assessments.
ISIS / ISIL was supported vigorously by Ankara in the process of
sweeping Kurdish territories, wreaking death and destruction on the
community. Given the historical conflict between Turkey and the Kurds,
it is easy to assume that advances by ISIS/ISIL meant a victory for
Erdogan and a successful degradation of the Kurdish community in the
Middle East.
Subtly and somewhat complacently, the United States reacted to this
behavior of Ankara in two ways. It primarily imposed a media blackout on
trade deals between Turkey and Daesh and it especially never attacked
ISIS in Syria with the so-called international coalition.
What has altered the chessboard is the Russian military intervention
in September of 2015. Moscow has been able to smash the wall of silence
and collusion present in Syria involving terrorist organizations such as
Daesh, Al Nusra Front, Jaysh al-Islam, Ansar al-Islam and countries
like the United States, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. In
addition to military action, the Russian Federation has been able to
apply strong diplomatic pressure on Western countries and, through the
RT news channel, has repeatedly exposed the support of terrorism at any
cost by the opponents of the legitimate government in Damascus.
Since September 2015 the war of aggression against Syria has been hit
hard by Moscow’s triad of military, diplomatic and media action. The
Syrian Arab Army (SAA) quickly recaptured many territories previously
lost. The liberation of Palmyra, and the road already opened to Deir
ez-Zor, the vast areas around the Russian military base in the province
of Latakia cleared, the recent victory at Darayya and Aleppo – these
finally showed a clear military solution to the crisis in Syria.
The consequences of the strategic re-conquests made by the SAA,
combined with the inability of Washington to more explicitly intervene
directly in the conflict with men and materiel, forced the US to change
its initial tactics. Hidden support (deliberately never mentioned by TV
and newspapers) of terrorist groups continues unabated, the same of
which can be said for Washington’s allies in the region. But what has
changed is the media narrative of the conflict.
The terrorist attacks in recent months in Europe and the United
States have arrested the attention of the public; and with a careful
direction, especially in the US, thanks to the presidential election,
people have been led to believe that a military intervention in Syria
and Iraq was necessary to deal with a threat to national security. The
inability to intervene directly with boots on the ground pushed
Washington to arm and support directly (with the Air Force and with
special forces) the Kurds as a force to opposing ISIS / ISIL on the
ground.
For their part, not having other options to regain territories
previously lost, the Kurds agreed to be the chosen on-the-ground force
supported by the international coalition. They preferred to ignore the
original sin of Washington (complicity with Daesh) to seize the unique
opportunity available to them. It was a choice that in the short term
ensured the desired results, with the recapture of several areas and an
expansion and enlargement of their territory by over 50%. For some
weeks, the Kurds even dreamed of the reunification of areas under their
control in Syria and Iraq while Washington was enjoying the
(self-proclaimed) media plaudits for combating Daesh, all the while
preventing the Syrian Arab Army from regaining territory from ISIS.
From Moscow’s point of view, this change of approach to Syria by the
Obama administration is a direct result of Russia’s military, diplomatic
and media intervention, and the subsequent reconquests made by the SAA
and its allies. It is a limited success, but still a victory against an
enemy of Damascus (Daesh). It is a complicated affair, as the conflict
in Syria stands out at times, wherein a partial victory is always
preferable to the possibility of a defeat.
The second phase of the Russian plan, much more ambitious and
difficult to achieve, is a military cooperation with Washington and its
allies against terrorist organizations in Syria. The continued refusal
of this proposal has once again exposed the real intentions of the
United States and regional partners, namely the removing of Assad and
the partitioning Syria’s territory.
The massive support given to the Kurds by the Americans created the
ideal environment for Ankara to justify an intervention in Syria. The
threat of a unification of Kurdish territory on Turkey’s border was a
red line the crossing of which Erdogan could not countenance. What we
understand is that the use of the Kurds against Daesh by Washington was a
temporary move to last some months, probably agreed to with Ankara,
designed for domestic consumption to appease public concern over Daesh.
With these enabling conditions, Ankara did not hesitate to use them to
its advantage. By entering Syrian territory and conquering Jarabulus,
Ankara has prevented the reunification of Kurdish territories, has
pleased its American ally by providing a structured land force (although
very limited for now), and is now trying to clean up its own media
image thanks to its portrayal of fighting Daesh. Analysing the
battlefield in recent weeks, ISIL/ISIS has often abandoned its
territories near the Turkish border without even engaging with the
Turkish Army. This behavior is consistent with the thesis that Daesh
functions as the West’s cat’s paw for regime change in Syria.
The final American attempt to use the Kurdish card to achieve their
strategic objectives against Damascus was the failed attempt to incite
the Syrian Kurds against regular police forces in Aleppo. Unfortunately
for US policy-makers, the attempt did not last long, thanks to Russian
mediation that put an end to the fighting.
The situation continues to evolve in favor of Damascus in recent
weeks. Aleppo is now surrounded and sealed off, signalling game over for
the terrorist gangs in northern Syria. Washington, running out of
options, promptly dumped its momentary Kurdish ally in favor of full
military cooperation with Ankara. Erdogan, for his part, had meanwhile
consolidated power thanks to the purge following the failed military coup,
and juggled his options so that he could easily play the
direct-military-intervention card in Syria with the advantage of
multiple excuses.
Erdogan even reiterated a few days ago at the G20 held in China that
he would be willing to help and collaborate with Washington to regain
the city of Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold in Syria. The substance of this
change does not alter the balance of the war but exacerbates the
conflict and places it on a new level. All armed groups in Syria over
the years have shown that they cannot prevail in the military
confrontation with Damascus and its allies. The United States,
supporting the Kurds, has forced Turkey to become the much-needed force
in the battlefield, essential in occupying territories currently held by
Daesh, and preventing Damascus from further conquering and unifying
Syrian territory.
This is Washington’s Plan B in the making, an old idea of the
dismemberment of Syria theorized by many Western think-tanks like the
Brookings Institute and RAND Corporation. The chances of the plan being
realizing remains unknown. Plan A failed miserably: Assad is still in
power, and it is only a matter of time before the SAA and its allies
finish liberating the rest of the country.
It remains to be seen how Daesh will react to the threat of losing
their so-called capital, Raqqa, in favour of the same forces (Turkey and
United States) that created and helped them rise from nothing. If
ISIS/ISIL should decide to fight and not abandon the city, it would be a
first for the international coalition and the Turkish army, finding
themselves embroiled in the Syrian quagmire like never before. How would
the people of Turkey and America react to their soldiers and special
forces being killed, imprisoned or tortured? Would Erdogan and Obama
still be able to justify the operation to the broader public?
The silence and proportional protests coming from Moscow in light of
the Turkish incursion in Syria confirms these suspicions: territories
reconquered from Ankara are not strategic; the Turkish force is
numerically limited (hence the objectives), and the ‘race’ to Raqqa
would probably cause more damage than gain for Erdogan and Obama.
Moreover, the Arab Syrian Army has other strategic priorities to address
and does not want to make the necessary countermeasures to arrive first
at Raqqa.
Obama and Erdogan’s bluff is all summed up in the last lines. Erdogan
and Obama, in the efforts to free Raqqa and penetrate further into
Syrian territory, hope to oblige Syrian forces to alleviate pressure on
terrorist groups elsewhere in the country, especially in Aleppo,
diverting troops towards the city of Raqqa. What we have been seeing in
recent days are empty statements of small conquests by Turkish troops in
Syrian territory, aimed at pushing Damascus to fall into the trap
prepared by Washington and Ankara.
The clock is ticking, and it is all in the favour of Moscow, Damascus
and Tehran, who observe the situation with relative calm. Their planned
strategy is providing most of the desired results, and now America and
its allies have only the ability to react to events on the ground, not
to determine or create them. Compared to a few years ago, this is a
resounding change. If Erdogan and Obama still will want to start doing
the dirty work in Raqqa against the same terrorist group they instigated
against Damascus, then they are free to do so.
All options available for Washington and its partners-in-terror will
have negative effects on the fateful goal to undermine Syria. Raqqa is a
Syrian city, inhabited by Syrians, and even if Ankara liberated it, it
is never going to be incorporated into an imaginary Turkish territory.
Strategic contortions, moral contradictions, media deception, and the
recent military defeats of terrorist groups have transformed Syria into
a recipe for disaster for Washington, Ankara, Doha and Riyadh, from
which there is no way out or path to victory.
No comments:
Post a Comment