Horror news from Syria about brutal torture incidents by agents of the Syrian regime and stories of atrocities committed by anti-Assad forces come up over and over again. The international community of states calls for an end of the war. However, it seems as if the lessons from the immediate past have not been learnt: Even critics of the US occupation of Iraq, and of the NATO attack on Libya loudly demand a conflict resolution by force, be it by an increased support to arm the rebels or an external military intervention.
On the one side Assad’s secret „Ghost soldiers“ and his henchmen slaughter and rape civilians. On the other side rebels of the Free Syrian Army loot freely, and Islamist militias publicly decapitate Syrian soldiers. Which side has been acting more brutal has become unclear for quite some time now. Furthermore, who belongs to which side is getting more and more opaque: Beside the regular Syrian army there are Iranian-trained militias; then there are also the Russians, supporting to an unknown extent the pro-Assad side. The anti-Assad forces consist of secular opponents of the regime, such as defected army soldiers as well as volunteers, revolting against Assad’s repressive (Mukhabarat) state. In addition, there are the often mentioned Islamist rebels, partly fighting for Al-Qaida as Al-Nusra Front and partly fighting as independent Salafi groups, which have already been sent to Libya by Qatar, official host of the football World Cup in 2022.
Who is part of which side, and who committed which massacre is no longer transparent. However, one thing is clear: This war has to end, because 20 Million Syrians have been devastated by it, and more than 1.5 Millions Syrians have been displaced forcefully from their homes. This war has to end, because the relatively harmonious Syrian population consisting of various sects has begun to fall apart. This war has to end, because it provokes further destabilization in the region: Israel has already intervened militarily several times, the border in the Golan Heights is becoming more dangerous every day. Like in Lebanon from 1975 to 1990, Syria could be dragged into a civil war lasting decades; turning citizens, neighbors and friends into enemies: More than 13 years after the Taif Agreement the Lebanon war ended; however hate between the religious and ethnic groups is still strikingly present to this day.
So, how can this civil war in Syria be stopped? It is alarming that the same mistakes are being made over and over again. Even pacifists call for military intervention. Yet, already the Lebanon war demonstrated the failure of an intervention by force: The massive deployment of UN troops has remained completely ineffective to this day, and Israeli as well as the Syrian interventions in 1982 took the war to a whole new level of escalation. Iraq’s Shia and Sunni population totally fell apart after the USA had intervened, and therefore made sustainable peace in the near future an unachievable objective. When in Libya the anti-Gaddafi rebel’s defeat was about to happen, France sent NATO jets to defeat Gaddafi and to bring democracy to tribal Libya. That the sovereignty of the recently elected head of state barely stretches beyond the walls of the government palace was predictable: Libya currently hosts more than 100 independent militias. This we have learned from recent history. Likewise, a military victory of the anti-Assad forces could probably – like it did in Afghanistan in the 1990s – bring an enduring terror reign of Islamist militias, whose fighters had never witnessed a religious tolerance like Syria’s, in contrast to their own home countries of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Consequently, Bashar al-Assads regime and the Free Syrian Army – as an instrument for a free and prosperous Syria – have the same enemy: the growing hate and wrath between the sects as well as the Islamist militias, who partly believe in fighting Zionists in Israel. In case an external military intervention really happens – which would include the obligatory imposition of a scarecrow head of state – it is highly likely that the civil war in Syria would continue between Sunnis versus Alawis, (other) Shia and Christians. In case the armed anti-Assad forces actually accomplish a very unlikely victory against the Baath regime, mass murder of Christians and Alawis is likely to happen. At the same time, Islamist militias would be able to continue their war, in the hope of achieving their divine goal: an Islamic state Iraq-Levante.
The only solution without risking further escalation of violence – even if it would be only a temporary solution – seems to be the formation of a Syrian alliance, including the Assad regime. Even if Bashar al-Assad has failed as the head of state – being responsible for the chaos, crimes and atrocities of the last two years – he is no insane criminal who is unable to debate and negotiate. Of course, the Assads’ Baath regime has been repressive and brutal. However, it also had its unquestionable positive influences: high religious tolerance, a broadly educated population and an unprecedented equality status between men and women. That Bashar’s and his father Hafez’ regime was – and still is – repressive, has never been a secret. At least it did not prevent many States from the Europaen Union from welcoming Bashar as an official guest with all honors.
A first step towards ending the daily suffering and improving the overall situation in Syria is to ignore redundant and propagandistic news footage of Assad forces using chemical weapons: The military option which is being continuously provoked leads to more chaos and violence. In the meantime, the rebels and the Syrian regime have already become tired of warfare and have stated their will to negotiate. That presents the only window of opportunity to end this complex conflict: Negotiations involving all actors, with the aim of finding a sustainable and peaceful solution; but without any expatriates – in the guise of external fake committees – influencing native political stakeholders.
The question what to do with the Assad’s and the Baath party is a different one. The international reaction of the war in Syria will demonstrate if the community of states has learned its lessons from the past decades of conflict resolution in the Middle East. However, the circumstances already indicate that an external military intervention is neither desired by the suffering Syrian population, nor would it bring at all the kind of peace aspired by the native people in the region.
