There will be no victors in a Syrian civil war

WITH the Kofi Annan peace plan all but doomed and a slow but steady escalation of violence in Syria that is looking more and more like it’s going to be a bloody civil war, questions must be raised as to what sort of country Syria will be in a post-civil war era. As recent history will bear witness, such conflicts have opened up age-old wounds along ethnic and sectarian lines where one community is pitted against another and all semblance of “nationhood” conveniently goes out the window. This happened in post-Saddam Iraq and is happening today in post-Gaddafi Lybia.

But before we get to a post-civil war scenario, there are several possible scenarios that may come from internal conflict in the country. With mounting human casualties causing public outcry in the region and beyond, the Assad regime is in danger of losing support of China and Russia. Indeed, if history were to repeat itself, i.e. arming of an increasingly belligerent rebel force backed up by aerial bombing under the guise of no-fly zones, the current regime is history. But Assad will not go without a fight. Syria can count on one country in the Mid-East, which is Iran, to help out in case things do get messy. A second front in Lebanon will invariably open up, for Hezbollah has everything to lose if Syria goes under. Should Hezbollah manage to force an Israeli military response, it will put Arab League nations clamouring for Assad’s head into a sticky situation. Looking at it from another angle, civil war will have repercussions for all regimes in the region. A war with the Sunnis of Gulf state countries on one side allied against Syria and Iranian Shiites coupled with the Shiite-majority pitching in their lot with Alawites, the conflict could very well turn into the next big religious war in the region. In the event of such a scenario evolves, its effects will be felt in every single Middle Eastern country.

With diplomatic efforts having failed miserably, thanks partly due to the reluctance of two major veto-wielding powers in the UN, the United States would have to go it alone with yet another “coalition of the willing.” But the question is whether the Obama administration is willing to get embroiled in yet another nation building exercise? More than a decade has passed since the Iraqi adventure first commenced and the country still requires Western military presence to keep the peace. Similarly, American experience with “nation building” in Afghanistan has failed to bring peace, prosperity and stability. With nearly $3 trillion spent on combating the war on terror and securing the home front against future threats, the uncomfortable truth is that neither country has been able to build institutions and military capabilities that allow for them to survive without foreign military presence.

Precisely how is the West going to deal with the inevitable power vacuum of a central authority? Syria, like many of its neighbours, is a nation that has been ruled by strongmen with an iron fist throughout its history. Allegiances are based along ethnic and tribal lines. What guarantee is there that the powerful militias will not disregard the Syrian National Council (SNC) leadership that has evolved over the course of the last year and the Free Syrian Army will not splinter along ethnic and religious divides to contend for power and prestige?

There are also other security concerns. As the regime’s control over the country loosens, the threat of Islamic militants gaining a foothold in Syria is evident. This was echoed recently by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper who stated that Sunni extremists have infiltrated a number of Syrian opposition groups. There is mounting evidence that radical forces could be behind the double suicide attacks outside a military intelligence building that killed 55 people on May 10. A Sunni Jihadist group called “The Front to Protect the Syrian People” claimed responsibility. This is the same group that claimed responsibility for three other attacks in Damascus and Alleppo earlier in the year.

The debate rages on between hawks who advocate the use of force to end this seemingly endless conflict and the doves who insist more time is needed for sanctions to take effect against the regime of Assad.

Courtesy - Daily Star.The writer is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.