With Britain joining the international coalition designed to help roll back the considerable threat posed by the Islamic State (IS), it is possible to say that the anti-IS coalition has become strong. There is a growing realization that left unchecked; the unmatched brutality of the IS could threaten stability of the Middle East beyond repair. The manifestation of this kind of terror has led many countries to join in the battle in both Iraq and Syria.
And yet, some may ponder whether Syrian President Bashar Assad will be the potential beneficiary of this new development. If this is to materialize, then it will be the most morally troubling outcome for such an intervention in Syria. Over the last few months, Assad’s troops had been losing grounds and now it appears as if the West is indirectly helping Assad.
This begs the question of who would step in and who would fill the vacuum once the IS gets defeated. This brings to the discussion the role of the Syrian moderate opposition. Their support with lethal weapons is undoubtedly long overdue. Therefore, the first step to be taken, along with striking at IS’ target inside Syria, is to train and equip Syria’s moderate forces with whatever possible to enable them to stand up to the Syrian regime. In other words, the moderate opposition, if it can get its act together, can be the best alternative to both the so-called Islamic State and the Syrian regime.
Of course, many observers suspect that the moderate opposition needs long time before it can be employed effectively. Even with the Congress approval for Obama’s request to train a rebel force, it would take a long time before these forces can take on the IS and the Assad’s troops. Needless to say, Assad is looking for an opportunity to take part in the war on the IS. His calculations is simple: If the West fails to bring about the desired outcome in Syria, it can resort to Assad for more cooperation and coordinating thus Assad can rehabilitate his illegitimate rule. Explicit in many statements made by senior Syrian officials is that Assad is ready to join the alliance against the terrorist groups. From the get-go, Assad and his propaganda apparatus tried to frame the crisis differently.
Rather than a genuine popular revolution against the Assad’s regime, his propaganda presents the situation as if it has been nothing but terrorists fighting a regime that is a key pillar for regional security. Thus far, Assad’s attempt and calls to join the coalition fell on deaf ears. It will certainly be unthinkable for western leaders to help rehabilitate leaders such as Assad. Therefore, their best option is the Syrian moderate opposition.
While western leaders understand this logic, it seems that it is easier said than done. Their hesitation during the Syrian crisis only helped the regime and its regional allies to hold on. Unfortunately, many of the opposition groups lost faith in the western intentions. And now it is hard to avoid the realization that there is nothing but a fragmented opposition. According to Joshua Landis, Director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, “Syria is a fragmented country, and most of these militias have a very town-centric quality. They’re based on clan structures and regional structures…none of them have really developed a national scope, except for the Islamist ones, like Al-Qaeda and the ISIS.”
Landis also argues that the existence of a plethora of opposition groups can turn Syria into a country convenient for warlord fiefdoms.
In sum, taking on the IS is a must. But perhaps, we should think of the post-IS era in Syria. Western leaders should step in and work meticulously to bring about a unified trained opposition.
—
Email: [email protected]
