by Ahmed E. Souaiaia
Hybrid wars, or asymmetrical wars, did not start with the war in Syria. After all, the fall of the Soviet Union, some of whose effects are unfolding before us today, was due, in part, to the war in Afghanistan. Two nuclear powers in an intense competition to control the world, cannot clash directly without the risk of a catastrophic outcome. Instead, they clashed through proxies on one side, the Saudi sponsored and radicalized Mujahidin, and Soviet supported and armed government of Afghanistan.
Fast forward to Syria 2011. When the UNSC failed to adopt a resolution to greenlight a military intervention to overthrow the government there, Western actors and their regional allies secured the best next thing: a resolution authorizing military action against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which allowed many of them to send troops to Syria under the pretext of fighting terrorism. With boots and hardware on the ground, some of these governments, including the US and Turkey especially, were able to strike against targets they labeled as “terrorist” and, importantly, built armed groups that allowed them to take and hold territories inside Syria.
After a couple of military operations, Turkey was able to carve out regions in northwest (Ifrin) and northern Syria and hand it over to the Syrian National Army (SNA) and other armed groups under its control. In addition to these regions directly occupied by Turkey, Turkish armed forces established “observation posts” in Idlib province, a region controlled by al-Qaeda affiliates and former affiliates including Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).
The US military trained and supplied the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and aided it to take control of most of the Syrian territories east of the Euphrates.
Initially, in 2014, these armed groups together, aimed to not only keep control of these areas, but to defeat the Syrian government. They almost did if it were not for Russia’s direct intervention in 2015.
Russia’s direct intervention in Syria, once again, brought the two nuclear armed nations to the same battle ground. Turkey, a member of NATO, aware of the change in the power differential with Russia on the side of the Syrian government, wanted the US and other Western allies to force Russia out. Banking on NATO’s credo, an attack on one is an attack on all, the Turkish government shot down a Russian jet over Idlib province. Instead of attacking a NATO member and provoking a military confrontation with global consequences, Russian leaders opted for economic retaliation targeting just Turkey. It worked.
Within months, the Turkish president had to flow to Moscow to meet Putin, apologize for the incident, and buy more advanced Russian defense systems in return for normalization of relations again. The two governments, in addition to Iran, created the Astana platform to de-escalate the conflict in Syria and work towards a political solution that would preserve the territorial integrity of Syria and respect its sovereignty. The platform was useful in managing the conflict without bringing it to a conclusion.
Foreign troops are still in Syria and, importantly, armed groups, are still controlling about 30% of Syria. What is important, in my mind, is that all these entities, state and non-state actors, have committed and continue to commit egregious human rights offenses. What is certain, though, is that no one will be held responsible for these human rights offenses, including those documented by an independent commission in three different reports thus far. The reasons: They are committed either by a superpower that acts above the law, by non-state actors who are shielded by a superpower, or by armed groups supported by a superpower. The latter would dissolve themselves once their functions are realized and they are no longer needed.
As soon as the war in Ukraine broke, leaders of that country called on people from around the world to join their fight. There is no evidence that Ukraine ever sent its people, in such an organized fashion, to support other communities devastated by wars, many were illegal wars of aggression. Yet, here we are, Ukraine is enabling its embassies around the world to facilitate the transfer of volunteers. As expected, Russian officials appear to do the same: they will transfer volunteers from the Middle East and Africa to eastern Ukraine to join the fight there. Another proxy-war is under way.
The biggest advantage of proxy wars is not the ability of non-state actors to win battles and wars. Their value is in their role as a scapegoat on whom to peg the blame for all human rights crimes without ever holding anyone responsible, since these non-state actors are disposable after use.
The brief overview of what happened in Syria is a prediction of what will happen in Ukraine should these superpowers and their regional allies follow the same path and engage in endless proxy wars. In this case, the superpowers will pay economic and political costs. However, those interested in human rights and advocating for the most vulnerable, the cost is much steeper because many will pay with their lives, some will pay with their bodies, and others will pay with their homes; and no one will ever be held accountable. Instead of cheering for one side or another engaged in war, we should keep this African wisdom in mind: When elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.”
__________
* Prof. SOUAIAIA is a member of the faculty at the University of Iowa with joint appointment in International Studies, Religious Studies, and College of Law. Opinions are the author’s, speaking on matters of public interest; not speaking for the university or any other organization with which he might be affiliated.
