Idlib must look to regional powers rather than US for help
Many Syria observers believe there is an impending major battle in Idlib, which is home to around 3 million Syrians and a large contingent of anti-Assad forces, primarily the Al-Qaeda-linked Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham (HTS). The region is essentially surrounded by President Bashar Assad’s loyalist forces, with the exception of a series of Turkish observation posts. In the event of a battle, the region would also come under fire from Russian jets. Assad will not desist until he recaptures the whole of Syria, but the rebels — those linked to Al-Qaeda and the others — will not easily surrender. Therefore, there is great fear of a catastrophic battle and a humanitarian crisis.
As with all humanitarian crises — or potential crises, as Idlib represents — there seems to be a lingering question: What will the world’s only superpower do? In this case, the answer is probably nothing.
The US has had a military presence in Syria for a few years, but the numbers and roles are unclear and believed to be small. That alone does not mean there is a need for any greater American intervention. The US military was not built to stand between two warring parties — the despotic Assad and the terrorist HTS. After all, nuclear submarines and stealth fighter jets are not useful as peacekeepers in urban warfare.
Perhaps the primary reason that the US cannot intervene directly in Syria is that there is no way to identify a particular group or groups to support. It seems now that Assad is going to win the civil war. Yet, even if there was still an opportunity to defeat him, the US does not have a strategic interest in toppling his regime. It is clear that Assad is a ruthless dictator and an enemy of US allies in the region, but the alternative to Assad could be much worse. For instance, in place of Assad, an Al-Qaeda or Daesh offshoot could take power.
The US, UK and others could attempt to establish peace talks, but they would have little chance of success at this point. Neither Assad nor his ally, Russia, has any reason to participate while they are winning. Moreover, in Idlib it seems HTS may be the only group powerful enough to consider negotiating on the other side, but the US cannot facilitate peace talks with an Al-Qaeda offshoot.
Hopefully someone will help the residents of Idlib, but that help should come from regional powers, not the superpower. At this point, there is not much the US can or should do.
Ellen R. Wald
The simple truth is that the US is not the country that should be providing help here. There are a variety of neighboring countries with resources and interests, some of which have already aided the Syrian population tremendously. Turkey is said to be housing 3.5 million Syrian migrants and Europe has absorbed many others. Jordan has also accepted Syrians, and Israel has provided medical treatment and rescue operations. Still, these countries, along with the Gulf states and Egypt, can perhaps contribute more.
As neighbors, all of these countries have significantly greater connections to and interests in the outcome in Syria. In contrast, the US is exhausted from constant Middle East action. As this column has detailed recently, in the last 40 years more than 7,500 US servicemen have been killed in conflicts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. The end result is always the same, as the US is hated by elements in the region just as much as, if not more than, it was before.
Another reason the US will not intervene in Syria is that it has little connection to the country. There are no historical, cultural or population ties of any significance between the two nations. In 2016, the most recent year for which there is data, fewer than six out of every 10,000 Americans was of Syrian descent. Moreover, the Syrian American population is diverse, including Arabs, Christians, Kurds, Jews, Armenians, Turkmens and others. There is no clear consensus on whether the US should intervene, even among the small number of Syrian Americans.
The issue of Idlib is not of any interest or importance to the American people. The people and media in the US are preoccupied with sustaining a growing economy, solving trade disputes and domestic politics. On a geopolitical scale, the US is thinking about issues that may directly impact Americans: North Korea, Mexico, Iran and, to some extent, the massive humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. An impending battle in Idlib rarely appears in the news in the US. Very few Americans are familiar with the situation in Idlib or knowledgeable and interested enough to even form an opinion.
If the US is going to intervene in any way, it may be best to do so with targeted missions before the civil war ends. These would be intended to protect the strategic interests of the US or its close allies. This could mean destroying stockpiles of chemical weapons; destroying other military assets that Assad and his Russian or Iranian allies should not have; or assisting Israel in facilitating strikes on Hezbollah.
But this war will end. It appears quite likely that Assad will win, and Russia and Iran will have influence in Syria as a result. Before that, there will likely be more fighting and more bloodshed in Idlib. Hopefully someone will help the residents of Idlib, but that help should come from regional powers, not the superpower. At this point, there is not much the US can or should do.
- Ellen R. Wald, Ph.D. is a historian and author of “Saudi, Inc.” She is the president of Transversal Consulting and also teaches Middle East history and policy at Jacksonville University. Twitter: @EnergzdEconomy
