A quick note about Arab culture: the father and the eldest son are the leaders of the clan, everyone else is just the flock. When the king dies, the eldest son is the new undisputed leader, that's just how it goes. But in the House of Assad in Syria there was a detour: the current Assad in charge, Bashaar al-Assad, is the little brother. He wasn't meant to be king, he didn't think he would be king, no one trained him to be king. King Little Bro did not instantly command the fealty of his people. Instead the citizenry splintered and began preparing for what was next (egged on by the bellicose Americans and Israelis). Syria then steadily drifted into a mix of revolution, civil war, invasion and chaos while the Assad regime continues to linger like last night's fish dinner. The citizenry of Syria is made up of a host of small ethnic groups none of whom ever truly trusted the others. The unrest drove millions of Syrians out, mostly into Europe where they did not find sweet relief.
Is Obama to blame? Though many want to say yes (solely because they assume the President of the United States to be at fault for all things), I will say no. Syria is one of those rare pockets of the world that has never been in the American sphere of influence. Throughout the the 20th century Syria was under the sway of Russians (slash Soviets), while in the 19th century it was the British and/or the French and for centuries before that it one of the more significant Ottoman centers. Damascus is an ancient city and the road to it is, as well. But for the Americans it has been an elusive place, either a Cold War stronghold of our enemies (Russia, et al) or a prickly neighbor of our allies (Turkey and Israel). We haven't sold guns there or fought wars there or bought oil there or sold blue jeans there, we don't have allies in Syria. So when the place falls apart and everyone expects POTUS to jump into the breach, that is an unrealistic expectation. Obama looked at his options in Syria and realized he had none. There are no good guys, no one to root for, no one to support. There are only waves and waves of unhappy minorities chipping away at each other (not unlike the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s).
Is Obama to blame? Though many want to say yes (solely because they assume the President of the United States to be at fault for all things), I will say no. Syria is one of those rare pockets of the world that has never been in the American sphere of influence. Throughout the the 20th century Syria was under the sway of Russians (slash Soviets), while in the 19th century it was the British and/or the French and for centuries before that it one of the more significant Ottoman centers. Damascus is an ancient city and the road to it is, as well. But for the Americans it has been an elusive place, either a Cold War stronghold of our enemies (Russia, et al) or a prickly neighbor of our allies (Turkey and Israel). We haven't sold guns there or fought wars there or bought oil there or sold blue jeans there, we don't have allies in Syria. So when the place falls apart and everyone expects POTUS to jump into the breach, that is an unrealistic expectation. Obama looked at his options in Syria and realized he had none. There are no good guys, no one to root for, no one to support. There are only waves and waves of unhappy minorities chipping away at each other (not unlike the dissolution of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s).
What was Obama supposed to do? Militarily remove Assad? (Good lord, what a terrible idea!) Fling bombs at Assad's supporters? (What would be the point of that?) Develop networks of anti-Assad factions? (We've done some of that, but I bet it ain't easy work or of much reward) The problem with this kind of factional warfare is that no one is ever on anyone's side, there are no allies only people you shoot at and people you don't waste your bullets on.
What is the outcome the Americans want in Syria? Again, we've never had any influence in Syria, so why would we want (or expect) any outcome? As an American, I don't care who runs Syria. I have never cared and I don't really see why I would start now. And I certainly don't see why anyone in Syria would care what I (as an American) think. The Israelis are wary of an Iranian-backed Shia-friendly leadership and the Turks aren't too keen on that either, so that is the de facto American policy as well.
My assumption is the Russians have long since banked on Assad's demise and have their next choice waiting in the wings. Perhaps Iran does too, maybe the French and the Brits as well. I'm sure the Israelis are familiar with the factions and may even have one or two that they'd be willing to deal with. Maybe China does, too (they've loaded troops into the Syrian maelstrom just like everyone else). I have no idea who any of their rooting interests lie with, I don't know any of the players. Everyone else has a dog in this fight but I can't for the life of me figure out who the Americans are rooting for. It seemed like we were backing the Syrian Kurds but though we've traditionally been sympathetic to the Iraqi Kurds, it appears Russia has claimed their support (and their oil fields in the east) instead.
Somewhere along the way, Daesh (you may know them as ISIL, ISIS or Islamic State), appeared and threw in their lot. The pissed off Iraqi Sunnis weren't strong enough to lope towards Baghdad so instead they were hoping to find Sunni comrades in Syria and take Damascus for themselves. For a while they become a cause celebre in the Arab world, drawing the ire of USA and Iran, Turkey and Russia equally. But personally I never saw anything that would make me think there was any military savvy in the Daesh camp. Their only weapon is fame and the ability to recruit worldwide through digital social networks. Daesh has now largely been defeated (Iraq just declared victory against them in the last few days) but realistically they weren't defeated, they just melted back into the towns and cities where they came from. Perhaps they will stay gone, perhaps they can be rejuvenated at a moment's notice. One puzzling detail about Syria these days: now that Daesh is gone, the world is generally acting like Syrian conflict has been resolved but Daesh was just one of the myriad of agitators in Syria. Were they the largest one? (No) Were they the most dangerous one? (No) Were they the most important or the most dynamic or the most impactful? (No) So why does everyone think that the Syrian Civil War is resolved?
Increasingly Iran and Saudi Arabia are flexing on each other and they're making everyone choose sides. In 2015 the President of the United States went to Iran and showered them with a fresh infusion of cash thanks to a historic 'peace' treaty; in 2017 the President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia to deliver a fresh infusion of weapons to the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques. Heretofore the Saudis and Iranians have pumped their new toys into Yemen but that has become a frustrating fight for both and nothing but a pointless humanitarian disaster to the rest of the world community. Syria is the economic engine that keeps the war machine rolling.
Syria is the powderkeg that has unleashed all the tensions. George Bush invaded Iraq after 9/11 for the purpose (I believe) of creating a super battlefield where the Americans could duke it out with their counterparts across the Arab world...but nobody showed. The chaos that ensued after the American invasion was largely Iraqi Shia groups elbowing each other for power. Al-Qaeda influence in Iraq was driven out by the Iraqis and no one else volunteered for the fight. So where does the battle go? Iraq is not the battlefield, Syria is the battlefield. Syria has a multitude of ethnic groups, none of whom are really powerful enough to rule. Assad's Alawites were, I think, a fluke of larger tide of world history: old man Assad was in the right place at the right time and he didn't fuck it up...until he accidentally left it all to the younger son. The instability of Syria goes back to that transition of power, the place has been rickety ever since with no end in sight and a million trillion outsiders flooding in to keep it going.
While Russia leads the Syrian Constitutional Convention, an attempt to approximate the interests of all the various groups of Syria with Russia's chosen leader on top, Syria is poised to be the skirmishing ground of Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Turkey and Israel making periodic jabs. The newfound alliance of Russia, Turkey and Iran will face some rough times going forward as their interests begin to diverge. And what of the refugees? Will the UN stand up for the right to return? Does the EU get a seat at the new Syrian Constitutional Convention? Some commentators will bemoan the lack of American presence but I think President Trump is eager to be somewhere else (gotta admit: Trump does his best work when he's complaining about the places he's not allowed to go).
Obama's innovation on Syria was to pretend like he was working with Russia. Russia's interest in Syria transcends Assad, if he falls I don't think that puts them out of Syria. So while the Russians are ostensibly propping up Assad, I think they can un-prop him at a moment's notice. And when the time comes to declare a winner, the Russians will be there to act like that's what they wanted the whole time. So while coordinating with Russia against Daesh was always a pretty weird idea, I give Obama props for weaseling his way into Russia's business. And, again, Obama didn't have any good choices anyway, so much like the Sacramento Kings front office, any decision he made was likely to fail, circumstances are just not in POTUS's favor. In the end, Obama effectively removed the USA from the Middle East and left Russia holding the bag, a situation Trump seems eager to continue.
Perpetual instability used to be the goal of American policy in the Middle East. W Bush tried to alter American policy in the Arab World by aggressively choosing sides (he chose Iran, not that anyone noticed at the time). Obama shifted it back by removing the troops meant to hold the military gains made in Iraq. Trump seems eager to go back even further to a time before the American Revolution, when these Asian nations all fought each other but we only heard about it years later. We have come back around to the Samuel Huntington thesis of all cultures at war with all other cultures as globalism throws them together, though this time it seems like we've removed ourselves (and don't be surprised if China is the one who appears victorious in the end).
Somewhere along the way, Daesh (you may know them as ISIL, ISIS or Islamic State), appeared and threw in their lot. The pissed off Iraqi Sunnis weren't strong enough to lope towards Baghdad so instead they were hoping to find Sunni comrades in Syria and take Damascus for themselves. For a while they become a cause celebre in the Arab world, drawing the ire of USA and Iran, Turkey and Russia equally. But personally I never saw anything that would make me think there was any military savvy in the Daesh camp. Their only weapon is fame and the ability to recruit worldwide through digital social networks. Daesh has now largely been defeated (Iraq just declared victory against them in the last few days) but realistically they weren't defeated, they just melted back into the towns and cities where they came from. Perhaps they will stay gone, perhaps they can be rejuvenated at a moment's notice. One puzzling detail about Syria these days: now that Daesh is gone, the world is generally acting like Syrian conflict has been resolved but Daesh was just one of the myriad of agitators in Syria. Were they the largest one? (No) Were they the most dangerous one? (No) Were they the most important or the most dynamic or the most impactful? (No) So why does everyone think that the Syrian Civil War is resolved?
Increasingly Iran and Saudi Arabia are flexing on each other and they're making everyone choose sides. In 2015 the President of the United States went to Iran and showered them with a fresh infusion of cash thanks to a historic 'peace' treaty; in 2017 the President of the United States went to Saudi Arabia to deliver a fresh infusion of weapons to the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques. Heretofore the Saudis and Iranians have pumped their new toys into Yemen but that has become a frustrating fight for both and nothing but a pointless humanitarian disaster to the rest of the world community. Syria is the economic engine that keeps the war machine rolling.
While Russia leads the Syrian Constitutional Convention, an attempt to approximate the interests of all the various groups of Syria with Russia's chosen leader on top, Syria is poised to be the skirmishing ground of Iran and Saudi Arabia, with Turkey and Israel making periodic jabs. The newfound alliance of Russia, Turkey and Iran will face some rough times going forward as their interests begin to diverge. And what of the refugees? Will the UN stand up for the right to return? Does the EU get a seat at the new Syrian Constitutional Convention? Some commentators will bemoan the lack of American presence but I think President Trump is eager to be somewhere else (gotta admit: Trump does his best work when he's complaining about the places he's not allowed to go).
Perpetual instability used to be the goal of American policy in the Middle East. W Bush tried to alter American policy in the Arab World by aggressively choosing sides (he chose Iran, not that anyone noticed at the time). Obama shifted it back by removing the troops meant to hold the military gains made in Iraq. Trump seems eager to go back even further to a time before the American Revolution, when these Asian nations all fought each other but we only heard about it years later. We have come back around to the Samuel Huntington thesis of all cultures at war with all other cultures as globalism throws them together, though this time it seems like we've removed ourselves (and don't be surprised if China is the one who appears victorious in the end).
I expect the resolution of all this action to be the powers that be figuring out what the Western world knows: people are worth a lot more money when you keep them living a life of improvement than when you run them into battle with each other. Living people produce a helluva lot more GDP than rotting corpses. Humanity is gradually becoming aware of this. The beauty of market forces is it produces technological innovation in service of peace rather than war. When the warriors embrace building nations rather than destroying them, when they choose to encourage life rather than ruin it, then the world will be a peaceful place, where battles are fought on PlayStations or Twitter rather than desert graveyards. Could take a while but I suspect that's where this is all leading.
