Changing tides in Syria?

TWENTY months after the eruption of peaceful protests against the regime of President Bashar Assad, the situation today spells a different reality. More than 30,000 people have perished so far in drawn-out bloody confrontations between armed dissidents, representing various groups with different political and ideological affiliations, and the Syrian regular army, which remains largely loyal to the beleaguered president.
The fighters have been able to penetrate crucial regions across the country and have "liberated" areas along Syria's long borders with Turkey, enabling them to receive arms and ammunition funneled through Qatar and other Gulf countries. But fierce battles continue to rage in Aleppo, Homs, Hama and other key towns and villages. It is a fluid situation with both sides making small gains and no one scoring a decisive victory. The Syrian army relies heavily on its air force, artillery and tanks, while the fighters wage street battles with only light arms and some heavy weapons which they gained in the battlefield. It's an uneven war that has resulted in massive destruction of cities and villages with civilians being the main casualty.
The United States and its Western allies have opted for non-direct involvement in the conflict. They rely on intermediaries to supply light arms and communication equipment to the fighters. CIA operatives working from Turkey have admitted that they have little information on the rebels and recently they voiced concerns that most arms are going to hard-line groups among the fighters and not to pro-West secular ones.
A report in The New York Times this week said officials now have doubts on "whether the White House's strategy of minimal and indirect intervention in the Syrian conflict is accomplishing its intended purpose of helping a democratic-minded opposition topple an oppressive government, or is instead sowing the seeds of future insurgencies hostile to the United States." Such fears were confirmed after the Sept. 11 attack in Libya on the US Benghazi consulate in which four American diplomats were killed, including the ambassador.
Revelations that the Benghazi incident was a planned terrorist attack by extremists was used by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to undermine President's Obama foreign policy in the wake of popular uprisings that have erupted in the Middle East in the last two years. Romney has called to attention the president's inept strategy on Syria. In a foreign policy speech two weeks ago he said he would ensure that rebel groups "who share our values" would "obtain the arms they need to defeat Assad's tanks, helicopters and fighter jets." But pundits believe Romney would face the same dilemma that Obama is facing today with regard to arming the wrong groups in Syria.
The flow of lethal arms into Syria has become the most urgent problem for Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN/Arab envoy, who is trying to find a political settlement to the conflict. Currently the regime is receiving arms from Russia and Iran. In June US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she believed that Russia was shipping attack helicopters to Syria. Recent reports spoke of Hizbollah and Iranian fighters joining the battle against the rebels. Turkey and Iraq announced that they will intercept civilian planes flying to Syria if they suspected that they were carrying arms.
It is difficult to estimate the number of foreign Jihadists fighting along the rebel side. But there are reports that groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda have crossed into Syria from Iraq. Salafist groups in Jordan have also said they have dispatched fighters to Syria. The New York Times reported that US
officials have been trying to understand why hard-line groups have received the lion's share of the arms shipped to the Syrian opposition. The Syrian Free Army has become a loose cover for tens of rebel groups, including defecting Syrian soldiers, but Western officials said they were discouraged by the lack of organization and the ineffectiveness of the disjointed Syrian opposition movement.
This has raised serious concerns about the future of Syria if and when President Assad is removed. With heavily armed groups of conflicting affiliations on the scene it is now believed that hard-line elements may have the upper hand in post-Assad Syria. With no effective political or military leadership, these groups will most likely engage in bitter conflicts among themselves.
Such menacing scenarios may have discouraged countries like Turkey, which has taken the lead in the anti-Assad campaign. The recent announcement by Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutolu that Syrian Vice President Farouq Al Shara could replace President Assad and that the Syrian opposition "is inclined to accept Shara" as the future leader of the Syrian administration has shocked many. French President Francois Hollande is reported to have liked the idea. But Syria and the opposition both rejected the proposal which some observers saw as an indication of a major change in Turkey's position.
Rebel forces have complained recently of shortages in ammunition and guns, a sign that traditional suppliers of weapons may be holding back at a time when major powers are rethinking the entire situation. The stalemate continues for now as Brahimi attempts to find backers for his plan to implement a cease-fire and jump-start a political process.

— Osama Al Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman.
E-mail: [email protected]