What Does the
US Want in Syria ?
- Christopher R Hill
- Christopher R Hill
After seven
years of bloodshed across shifting battlefronts, the conflict in Syria has
become so complicated that a workable resolution seems all but impossible
anytime soon. And the United States' failure to define its long-term interests
in the country and the region is not making matters any easier.
DENVER, Feb. 21
Given that most of the Middle East is now in a state of turmoil, US Secretary
of State Rex Tillerson should be commended for keeping the Syrian conflict in
mind during his recent trip to the region.
His job hasn’t
been easy. American diplomacy has been all but invisible in the Middle East,
and the State Department does not seem to have any ideas or, more importantly,
funding with which to take the lead. If the United States is serious about
addressing the increasingly deadly crisis in Syria, it needs to start showing
sustained interest – and put its money where its mouth is.
The complexity
of the situation in Syria has far surpassed the world’s capacity to master it.
Rapidly changing events, a growing number of players, and constantly shifting
battle lines all point to a quagmire.
Just six months
ago, there were two clear trends in the conflict: Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad, with the support of Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah, was well on his way
to victory; and the Islamic State (ISIS) was about to be soundly defeated by a
US-led coalition. Today, the successful campaign against ISIS seems Pyrrhic, at
best. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost, and a resolution of the
larger conflict is nowhere in sight.
If anything, the
world is even more on edge now. In recent weeks, Israel has clashed with
Iranian forces in southern Syria to show that it will not allow Iran to
establish a presence there. And Turkey has launched a bold campaign against
Syria’s Kurds, whom it hopes to drive out of the northwest province of Afrin to
prevent them from linking up with Turkish Kurds across the border. Assad has
come to terms with reality and indicated that he would cede territory to the
Syrian Kurds. But Turkey remains unwilling to countenance an autonomous Kurdish
entity along its border.
The US, for its
part, has spent the past six years marshaling various groups of Sunni Arab
fighters under the auspices of the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, an
offshoot of what was previously called the Free Syrian Army. Some elements of
the SDF have been more effective than others, and have even fought alongside
the Kurds against ISIS. But now they find themselves in the crosshairs not just
of Assad, but also of Russia and various Iran-backed Shia militias.
The US was right
to focus on defeating ISIS; but now it faces a much broader mission: to ensure
the survival of its various allies on the ground. This raises the prospect of a
direct conflict with other powers, not least Russia. In fact, the US may
already have killed dozens of Russian military contractors in a recent
airstrike.
The US and its
European partners have been reluctant to come down hard on their NATO ally
Turkey, and have merely urged Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to show
restraint. But jawboning, one of the US’s favorite diplomatic tools, rarely
works on those in the heat of battle.
Moreover, Turkey
doesn’t seem to care what its allies think. For example, it recently raised
eyebrows within NATO yet again by purchasing new-generation Russian S-400
antiaircraft batteries. This does not bode well for any future peace process.
After all, Western countries will need Turkey to counterbalance the Russians,
whose broader strategic agenda goes well beyond the Middle East.
When historians
look back at the Syria conflict, they will praise both former Presidents Barack
Obama and Donald Trump for relentlessly pursuing ISIS. But they will fault the
US for not comprehending the larger war.
It is already
clear that the Obama administration didn’t know what it was bargaining for
when, without thinking about what would come next, it called in 2011 for
Assad’s removal. In July of that year, Robert S. Ford, the US ambassador to
Syria, was sent to the Sunni town of Hama, where Assad’s father had ordered a
massacre 30 years earlier. According to the State Department at the time, the
point of the visit was to “[express] our deep support for the right of the
Syrian people to assemble peacefully and to express themselves.” Did the
administration really not foresee that Assad – like his father before him –
would react to a popular uprising with violence?
When the US took
a side against Assad seven years ago, it was asserting its national interest in
Syria while ignoring the interests of other key players such as Turkey, Russia,
Iran, and Israel. And now, with the US vacillating, there is a very real danger
of a full-fledged US-Russian proxy war.
So far, the
Trump administration has not been spurred to action by the humanitarian
catastrophe confronting Syrian civilians. But perhaps it would do more if it
considered the threat the conflict poses to the entire region.
If the
administration wants to show leadership, it should start by consulting the
other regional powers to understand their interests and determine if they can
be reconciled. Tillerson may be trying to do just that. But even before asking
the regional players what they want, the Trump administration should ask itself
the same question. With the stakes in Syria rising fast, one can only wonder
where America stands.
Christopher R.
Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador
to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a
negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North
Korea from 2005-2009. He is Chief Advisor to the Chancellor for Global
Engagement and Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of
Denver, and the author of Outpost.
---