Saudi Arabia's Shadow War

The Kingdom is turning to Pakistan to train Syria’s rebels. It’s a partnership that once went very wrong in Afghanistan. Will history repeat itself?

BY DAVID KENNER from BEIRUT

Saudi Arabia, having largely abandoned hope that the United States will spearhead international efforts to topple the Assad regime, is embarking on a major new effort to train Syrian rebel forces. And according to three sources with knowledge of the program, Riyadh has enlisted the help of Pakistani instructors to do it.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, along with the CIA, also supported the Afghan rebels against the Soviet-backed government during the 1980s. That collaboration contains a cautionary note for the current day: The fractured Afghan rebels were unable to govern after the old regime fell, paving the way for chaos and the rise of the Taliban. Some of the insurgents, meanwhile, transformed into al Qaeda and eventually turned their weapons against their former patrons.

While the risk of blowback has been discussed in Riyadh, Saudis with knowledge of the training program describe it as an antidote to extremism, not a potential cause of it. They have described the kingdom's effort as having two goals -- toppling the Assad regime, and weakening al Qaeda-linked groups in the country. Prince Turki, the former Saudi intelligence chief and envoy to Washington, said in a recent interview that the mainstream opposition must be strengthened so that it could protect itself "these extremists who are coming from all over the place" to impose their own ideologies on Syria.

The ramped up Saudi effort has been spurred by the kingdom's disillusionment with the United States. A Saudi insider with knowledge of the program described how Riyadh had determined to move ahead with its plans after coming to the conclusion that President Barack Obama was simply not prepared to move aggressively to oust Assad. "We didn't know if the Americans would give [support] or not, but nothing ever came through," the source said. "Now we know the president just didn't want it."

Pakistan's role is so far relatively small, though another source with knowledge of Saudi thinking said that a plan was currently being debated to give Pakistan responsibility for training two rebel brigades, or around 5,000 to 10,000 fighters. Carnegie Middle East Center fellow Yezid Sayigh first noted the use of Pakistani instructors, writing that the Saudis were planning to build a Syrian rebel army of roughly 40,000 to 50,000 soldiers.

"The only way Assad will think about giving up power is if he's faced with the threat of a credible, armed force," said the Saudi insider.

A State Department official declined to comment on the Saudi training program.

Saudi Arabia's decision to move forward with training the Syrian rebels independent of the United States is the latest sign of a split between the two longtime allies. In Syria, Saudi officials were aggrieved by Washington's decision to cancel a strike on the Assad regime in reprisal for its chemical weapons attack on the Damascus suburbs this summer. A top Saudi official told the Washington Postthat Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan was unaware of the cancelation of the strike. "We found about it from CNN," he said.

As a result, Saudi Arabia has given up on hopes that the United States would spearhead efforts to topple Assad and decided to press forward with its own plans to bolster rebel forces. That effort relies on a network of Saudi allies in addition to Pakistan, such as Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and France.

As Sayigh laid out in his Carnegie paper, Saudi Arabia is attempting to build "a new national army" for the rebels -- a force with an "avowedly Sunni ideology" that could seize influence from mainstream Syrian opposition groups. In addition to its training program in Jordan, Saudi Arabia also helped organize the unification of roughly 50 rebel brigades into "the Army of Islam" under the leadership of Zahran Alloush, a Salafist commander whose father is a cleric based in the kingdom.

Given the increased Islamization of rebel forces on the ground, analysts say, it only makes sense that Saudi Arabia would throw its support behind Salafist groups. These militias "happen to be the most strategically powerful organizations on the ground," said Charles Lister, an analyst with IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre. "If Saudi Arabia does indeed follow such a strategy... it could well stand to become a major power player in the conflict."

In calling on Pakistan to assist in toppling Assad, Saudi Arabia can draw on its deep alliance with Islamabad. The two countries have long shared defense ties: Saudi Arabia has given more aid to Pakistani than to any non-Arab country, according to former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, and also allegedly helped fund Islamabad's nuclear program. In return, Pakistan based troops in Saudi Arabia multiple times over three decades to protect the royals' grip on power.

The current Pakistani government, in particular, is closely tied to Saudi Arabia. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was ousted from power in 1999 by a military coup - the Saudis allegedly brokered a deal that kept him from prison. Sharif would spend the next seven years in exile, mainly in Saudi Arabia. "For the Saudis, Sharif is a key partner in a key allied state," said Arif Rafiq, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute.

But despite close collaboration in the past, Saudi Arabia may find its old allies chafing at the sheer scope of its ambitions in Syria. One Pakistani source with close ties to military circles confirmed that Saudi Arabia had requested assistance on Syria over the summer -- but argued that Pakistani capabilities and interests were not conducive to a sweeping effort to train the rebels.

Pakistan is already grappling with its own sectarian bloodshed and must mind its relationship with Iran, while its foreign policy is focused on negotiations with the Taliban over the future of Afghanistan and its longtime rivalry with India. "They have their hands full," the source said. "And even if they want to, I don't think they'll be able to give much concrete help."

Jordan is also reportedly leery about fielding a large Syrian rebel army on its soil. The ambitious Saudi plan would require a level of support from Amman "that is opposed within the security and military establishment and is unlikely to be implemented," according to Sayigh.

As the Saudis expand their effort to topple Assad, analysts say the central challenge is not to inflict tactical losses on the Syrian army, but to organize a coherent force that can coordinate its actions across the country. In other words, if Riyadh hopes to succeed where others have failed, it needs to get the politics right -- convincing the fragmented rebel groups, and their squabbling foreign patrons, to work together in pursuit of a shared goal.

It's easier said than done. "The biggest problem facing the Saudis now is the same one facing the U.S., France, and anyone else interested in helping the rebels: the fragmentation of the rebels into groups fighting each other for local and regional dominance rather than cooperating to overthrow Assad," said David Ottaway, a scholar at the Wilson Center who wrote a biography of Prince Bandar. "Could the Saudis force [the rebel groups] to cooperate? I have my doubts."

-This article was published first in Foreign Policy on 6 November 2013
-David Kenner is the Middle East editor for Foreign Policy

Iran: The Age of ‘Blood Feuds’ is Over

Hassan Rouhani offers an olive branch to the West and says his government is prepared to ‘"facilitate dialogue" as Syrian officials ponder a potential ceasefire

By David Stout and Denver Nicks

Ayatullah Ali Khamanei and President Hassan Rouhani

After decades in which relations between the United States and Iran have been cold if not openly hostile the newly elected Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has signaled his country may be ready to talk rapprochement with the West. The Iranian leader, who is set to speak at the United Nations next week, has also offered to help initiate talks between the embattled government of President Bashar Assad and the opposition in Syria.

In a Washington Post op-ed published on Friday, Rouhani wrote: “The world has changed. International politics is no longer a zero-sum game but a multi-dimensional arena where cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously. Gone is the age of blood feuds. World leaders are expected to lead in turning threats into opportunities.”

Speaking to the war in Syria, Rouhani wrote: “We must create an atmosphere where peoples of the region can decide their own fates. As part of this, I announce my government’s readiness to help facilitate dialogue between the Syrian government and the opposition.”

Since taking office in August, Rouhani has rolled out a measured public relations drive in an attempt to bring Tehran back into the international fold after years of diplomatic and economic isolation under former leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Rouhani is set to travel to New York next week to attend the U.N. General Summit. While the president is not scheduled to hold formal talks with U.S. President Barack Obama, rumors continue to circulate in diplomatic circles that the two may briefly meet on the sidelines of the summit. When Rouhani was asked by NBC’s Ann Curry about the potential for dialogue during an interview in Tehran this week, Rouhani replied that “necessary conditions” must be met first, but the president noted that “anything is possible in the world of politics.”

Meanwhile, Assad’s Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil has admitted that the civil war has ground to a stalemate with no side seemingly strong enough to secure a decisive battlefield victory, and that officials were considering calling for a ceasefire during a proposed conference in Geneva.

“Neither the armed opposition nor the regime is capable of defeating the other side,” Jamil told the Guardian. “This zero balance of forces will not change for a while.”

While the government may be considering a ceasefire that could bring peace to large swathes of the country, rebel militias in the war-torn nation continued to battle both forces loyal to Assad and each other this week — opening a new front and adding another layer of complexity to the more than two-year-old conflict. On Thursday, an Al-Qaeda-linked militia succeeding in resting a town near the Turkish border from rebels with ties to the more moderate Free Syrian Army.

The news follows reports of renewed tensions between Islamist forces calling for the establishment of a caliphate in the country and militias committed to unseating Assad. In an audio message published last week, Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri called on Islamist militias in Syria to shun relations with more moderate, secular forces that the U.S. has begun furnishing with light arms.

“I warn my brothers and people in the Syria of unity and jihad against coming close to any of these groups,” said Zawahri in an audio message recorded earlier this month.

In a blow to both Islamists and Assad, reports surfaced earlier this week that the opposition Syrian National Coalition struck a groundbreaking deal with a bloc of influential Kurdish parties. According to a report published by Abu Dhabi’s The National, both opposition forces and Assad have attempted to secure the ethnic group’s support with “each believing it could be crucial in tipping the balance of power on the ground in their favor.” Kurds account for approximately 10% of Syria’s population.

- This article was published on Time’s magazine website on 20/09/2013 

Cooperation agreement between the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce & Industry and “ASSWAK Al-ARAB” magazine

A cooperation agreement was signed between the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) and the British company Asswak Al Arab Publishing Limited (AAAP) (the publisher of “ASSWAK AL-ARAB” magazine) in which Asswak Al-Arab was named the media coordinator and marketing agent for BCCI in the Middle East and North Africa.

As part of this agreement, AAAP will publish news and articles focusing on Brazil’s dynamic business community. In particular, offering an insight in to Brazil’s economic, Investment and corporate developments. Furthermore, BCCI will translate AAAP’s magazine into Portuguese for distribution to its local membership.

In addition AAAP, according to the agreement, will organize conferences and seminars throughout the Arab-speaking world. These will, under the auspices of BCCI, seek to promote Brazilian companies and products in the region and the opportunities for Investment in Brazil as well as provide a platform for improved economic and diplomatic relations between the Brazilian and Arab business communities.

The President of the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Mr Ghassan Saab said: "We are eager to bring Brazil to the Arab world, something we have been exploring for quite some time. Following an in-depth study, we felt that Asswak Al Arab was a natural partner given its reputation and dynamic expansion. We are confident that they will be a key partner in leading marketing and media coordination for BCCI in the Middle East and North Africa."

Commenting on the Agreement the Chairman of AAAP, Mr Gabriel Tabarani said: "We are delighted to partner with the Brazilian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to help them engage in the fast growing Arab-speaking market. We feel that we will be well placed to drive this, particularly as it coincides with the upcoming launch of our daily website and internet-TV products.”

Syria, America and Putin's Bluff

In recent weeks George Friedman written about U.S. President Barack Obama's bluff on Syria and the tightrope he is now walking on military intervention. There is another bluff going on that has to be understood, this one from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

By George Friedman



Putin is bluffing that Russia has emerged as a major world power. In reality, Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that that he doesn't have, and he has done it well. For him, Syria poses a problem because the United States is about to call his bluff, and he is not holding strong cards. To understand his game we need to start with the recent G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Putin and Obama held a 20-minute meeting there that appeared to be cold and inconclusive. The United States seems to be committed to some undefined military action in Syria, and the Russians are vehemently opposed. The tensions showcased at the G-20 between Washington and Moscow rekindled memories of the Cold War, a time when Russia was a global power. And that is precisely the mood Putin wanted to create. That's where Putin's bluff begins.

A Humbled Global Power

The United States and Russia have had tense relations for quite a while. Early in the Obama administration, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up in Moscow carrying a box with a red button, calling it the reset button. She said that it was meant to symbolize the desire for restarting U.S.-Russian relations. The gesture had little impact, and relations have deteriorated since then. With China focused on its domestic issues and with Europe in disarray, the United States and Russia are the two major -- if not comparable -- global players, and the deterioration in relations can be significant. We need to understand what is going on here before we think about Syria.

Twenty years ago, the United States had little interest in relations with Russia, and certainly not with resetting them. The Soviet Union had collapsed, the Russian Federation was in ruins and it was not taken seriously by the United States -- or anywhere else for that matter. The Russians recall this period with bitterness. In their view, under the guise of teaching the Russians how to create a constitutional democracy and fostering human rights, the United States and Europe had engaged in exploitative business practices and supported non-governmental organizations that wanted to destabilize Russia.

The breaking point came during the Kosovo crisis. Slobodan Milosevic, leader of what was left of Yugoslavia, was a Russian ally. Russia had a historic relationship with Serbia, and it did not want to see Serbia dismembered, with Kosovo made independent.

There were three reasons for this. First, the Russians denied that there was a massacre of Albanians in Kosovo. There had been a massacre by Serbians in Bosnia; the evidence of a massacre in Kosovo was not clear and is still far from clear. Second, the Russians did not want European borders to change. There had been a general agreement that forced changes in borders should not happen in Europe, given its history, and the Russians were concerned that restive parts of the Russian Federation, from Chechnya to Karelia to Pacific Russia, might use the forced separation of Serbia and Kosovo as a precedent for dismembering Russia. In fact, they suspected that was the point of Kosovo. Third, and most important, they felt that an attack without U.N. approval and without Russian support should not be undertaken both under international law and out of respect for Russia.

President Bill Clinton and some NATO allies went to war nevertheless. After two months of airstrikes that achieved little, they reached out to the Russians to help settle the conflict. The Russian emissary reached an agreement that accepted the informal separation of Kosovo from Serbia but would deploy Russian peacekeepers along with the U.S. and European ones, their mission being to protect the Serbians in Kosovo. The cease-fire was called, but the part about Russian peacekeepers was never fully implemented.

Russia felt it deserved more deference on Kosovo, but it couldn't have expected much more given its weak geopolitical position at the time. However, the incident served as a catalyst for Russia's leadership to try to halt the country's decline and regain its respect. Kosovo was one of the many reasons that Vladimir Putin became president, and with him, the full power of the intelligence services he rose from were restored to their former pre-eminence.

Western Encroachment

The United States has supported, financially and otherwise, the proliferation of human rights groups in the former Soviet Union. When many former Soviet countries experienced revolutions in the 1990s that created governments that were somewhat more democratic but certainly more pro-Western and pro-American, Russia saw the West closing in. The turning point came in Ukraine, where the Orange Revolution generated what seemed to Putin a pro-Western government in 2004. Ukraine was the one country that, if it joined NATO, would make Russia indefensible and would control many of its pipelines to Europe.

In Putin's view, the non-governmental organizations helped engineer this, and he claimed that U.S. and British intelligence services funded those organizations. To Putin, the actions in Ukraine indicated that the United States in particular was committed to extending the collapse of the Soviet Union to a collapse of the Russian Federation. Kosovo was an insult from his point of view. The Orange Revolution was an attack on basic Russian interests.

Putin began a process of suppressing all dissent in Russia, both from foreign-supported non-governmental organizations and from purely domestic groups. He saw Russia as under attack, and he saw these groups as subversive organizations. There was an argument to be made for this. But the truth was that Russia was returning to its historical roots as an authoritarian government, with the state controlling the direction of the economy and where dissent is treated as if it were meant to destroy the state. Even though much of this reaction could be understood given the failures and disasters since 1991, it created a conflict with the United States. The United States kept pressing on the human rights issue, and the Russians became more repressive in response.

Then came the second act of Kosovo. In 2008, the Europeans decided to make Kosovo fully independent. The Russians asked that this not happen and said that the change had little practical meaning anyway. From the Russian point of view, there was no reason to taunt Russia with this action. The Europeans were indifferent.

The Russians found an opportunity to respond to the slight later that year in Georgia. Precisely how the Russo-Georgian war began is another story, but it resulted in Russian tanks entering a U.S. client state, defeating its army and remaining there until they were ready to leave. With the Americans bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, no intervention was possible. The Russians took this as an opportunity to deliver two messages to Kiev and other former Soviet states. First, Russia, conventional wisdom aside, could and would use military power when it chose. Second, he invited Ukraine and other countries to consider what an American guarantee meant.

U.S.-Russian relations never really recovered. From the U.S. point of view, the Russo-Georgia war was naked aggression. From the Russian point of view, it was simply the Russian version of Kosovo, in fact gentler in that it left Georgia proper intact. The United States became more cautious in funding non-governmental organizations. The Russians became more repressive by the year in their treatment of dissident groups.

Since 2008, Putin has attempted to create a sense that Russia has returned to its former historic power. It maintains global relations with left-wing powers such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Cuba. Of course, technically Russia is not left wing, and if it is, it is a weird leftism given its numerous oligarchs who still prosper. And in fact there is little that Russia can do for any of those countries, beyond promising energy investments and weapon transfers that only occasionally materialize. Still, it gives Russia a sense of global power.

In fact, Russia remains a shadow of what the Soviet Union was. Its economy is heavily focused on energy exports and depends on high prices it cannot control. Outside Moscow and St. Petersburg, life remains hard and life expectancy short. Militarily, it cannot possibly match the United States. But at this moment in history, with the United States withdrawing from deep involvement in the Muslim world, and with the Europeans in institutional disarray, it exerts a level of power in excess of its real capacity. The Russians have been playing their own bluff, and this bluff helps domestically by creating a sense that, despite its problems, Russia has returned to greatness.

In this game, taking on and besting the United States at something, regardless of its importance, is critical. The Snowden matter was perfect for the Russians. Whether they were involved in the Snowden affair from the beginning or entered later is unimportant. It has created two important impressions. The first is that Russia is still capable of wounding the United States -- a view held among those who believe the Russians set the affair in motion, and a view quietly and informally encouraged by those who saw this as a Russian intelligence coup even though they publicly and heartily denied it.

The second impression was that the United States was being hypocritical. The United States had often accused the Russians of violating human rights, but with Snowden, the Russians were in a position where they protected the man who had revealed what many saw as a massive violation of human rights. It humiliated the Americans in terms of their own lax security and furthermore weakened the ability of the United States to reproach Russia for human rights violations. 

Obama was furious with Russia's involvement in the Snowden case and canceled a summit with Putin. But now that the United States is considering a strike on the Syrian regime following its suspected use of chemical weapons, Washington may be in a position to deal a setback to a Russia client state, and by extension, Moscow itself.

The Syria Question

The al Assad regime's relations with Russia go back to 1970, when Hafez al Assad, current President Bashar al Assad's father, staged a coup and aligned Syria with the Soviet Union. In the illusion of global power that Putin needs to create, the fall of al Assad would undermine his strategy tremendously unless the United States was drawn into yet another prolonged and expensive conflict in the Middle East. In the past, the U.S. distraction with Iraq and Afghanistan served Russia's interests. But the United States is not very likely to get as deeply involved in Syria as it did in those countries. Obama might bring down the regime and create a Sunni government of unknown beliefs, or he may opt for a casual cruise missile attack. But this will not turn into Iraq unless Obama loses control completely.

This could cause Russia to suffer a humiliation similar to the one it dealt the United States in 2008 with Georgia. The United States will demonstrate that Russia's concerns are of no account and that Russia has no counters if and when the United States decides to act.

The impact inside Russia will be interesting. There is some evidence of weakness in Putin's position. His greatest strength has been to create the illusion of Russia as an emerging global power. This will deal that a blow, and how it resonates through the Russian system is unclear. But in any event, it could change the view of Russia being on the offensive and the United States being on the defensive.

Putin made this a core issue for him. I don't think he expected the Europeans to take the position that al Assad had used chemical weapons. He thought he had more pull than that. He didn't. The Europeans may not fly missions but they are not in a position to morally condemn those who do. That means that Putin's bluff is in danger.

History will not turn on this event, and Putin's future, let alone Russia's, does not depend on his ability to protect Russia's Syrian ally. Syria just isn't that important. There are many reasons that the United States might not wish to engage in Syria. But if we are to understand the U.S.-Russian crisis over Syria, it makes sense to consider the crisis within in the arc of recent history from Kosovo in 1999 to Georgia in 2008 to where we are today.

-This article was published by Stratfor Global Intelligence on 10/09/2013

- The writer is the president of Stratfor Global Intelligence

Pick Your Poison : America Has Many Options in Syria, None are Good

The United States is about to go to war in Syria. So perhaps it's a good time to ask the question: Do we really know what we're getting into?

By Richard K. Betts

The reason that U.S. President Barack Obama passed the buck on authorizing a military strike on Syria to Congress is not because getting congressional approval is the constitutional thing to do. It always has been, although presidents have regularly denied it. Rather, Obama passed the buck to Congress because it was the only way out of the dilemma that he imposed on himself when he declared the use of chemical weapons to be a red line, without having thought through whether or how to go to war if the line was crossed.

When the red line was crossed, the administration’s belated search for military options faced two contradictions. The first was between the strong incentives to retaliate against the government of Bashar al-Assad and the wide opposition in both the United States and outside world to U.S. military action. The second was between the amount of force that would have a chance of producing useful strategic results and the amount that is politically tolerable. Even among those who demand action, pressure to use U.S. military power is exceeded by pressure not to use very much of it, for fear of entanglement that clearly does mean war.

A responsible choice for Congress and the president must at least be one that does not make things worse. All things considered, that could mean backing away from the threat of action so clearly implied by Obama weeks ago, even though that would be an embarrassing retreat. By accepting the embarrassment, those members of Congress who vote against authorizing the use of force can resolve the two contradictions. But those members who choose to back the president must also, in effect, endorse the intent to use modest amounts of force. That endorsement should, in principle, rest on a sober comparison of what all the potential strategies, including those already rejected out of hand, can be expected to accomplish at an acceptable price. What any strategy can do depends on the fit between political objectives and military operations designed to achieve them.

Logically, there are at least six potential objectives, some of which overlap. These include a symbolic statement against war crimes; punishment of the Assad regime for its crimes; coercion of the regime to change its policy; ending the war, eventually, by helping to defeat Assad; demonstrating credibility to foreign audiences; and demonstrating credibility to domestic audiences. And assuming that the United States has no intention of marching into Damascus, the operation’s half of the equation rests on precisely how limited the air strikes will be. “Limited” air action can range from a few symbolic strikes with minor material impact to a seriously destructive campaign against dozens of targets over the course of several weeks.

Obama made clear before passing the ball to Congress that attacks near the mild end of the spectrum would be the only ones he would countenance. In truth, American air strikes on any scale may not serve some of these objectives. But the most limited attacks are likely to be the least effective for any of the six objectives except the first and the last -- which are the least strategically valid ones. Indeed, the lightest strikes could prove not just ineffective for the most important purposes but counterproductive.

Symbolic use of force can be accomplished with very small-scale strikes. They register stern disapproval of the enemy’s atrocities, and may also serve the last of the six objectives, pre-empting domestic critics waiting to berate the Obama administration for complete fecklessness. Strategically, however, they achieve nothing positive in a brutal war where the contestants are used to paying high costs every day. Pinprick strikes actually signal a lack of serious purpose, and weathering them is a badge of honor for a weak regime confronting a superpower.

Punishment, pure and simple, is the most obvious rationale for retaliation. Assad can be made to pay a price for crossing Obama’s red line, even if the retaliation accomplishes nothing more. There is something to be said for making the point that, even if governments can survive after committing war crimes despite U.S. warnings, they cannot do it for free. That may help to deter third parties in future conflicts. But to make punishment impressive means inflicting damage that is severe. Even if the operation is stronger than pinprick action, destruction from American bombs will appear ineffective if the regime can absorb it as easily as the damage that has accumulated from day to day throughout the war. The more dramatic the price that the United States exacts in the form of damage, the better its strategic point is made.

Coercion -- to deter Assad from further use of chemicals, or to compel him to make political concessions -- would apply punishment toward a more ambitious and difficult goal. Some theorists have argued that restrained use of force can be effective at signaling to a targeted government that it stands to lose much more from subsequent escalation if it does not concede. That idea makes some logical sense, but it has not been borne out in many actual wartime cases, if any, as research by Robert Pape, professor of politics at the University of Chicago, and others has shown. In any case, this strategy depends on intent to up the ante with stronger force if restrained attacks don’t get the desired result.

The closest thing to an example of successful coercion by air attack alone was the war over Kosovo, but that was a massive 78-day assault (surely the outer limits of the concept of “limited”), and it inflicted a huge amount of destruction on Serbia and its civilian population. It proved vastly more costly to NATO than world leaders anticipated at the outset -- they planned no more than a few days of bombing. Finally, there is yet much uncertainty over whether Serbia’s surrender was due to the air war or to other causes, such as the prospect of invasion on the ground or withdrawal of Russian diplomatic support. In any case, the Obama administration has made clear that it does not intend to bomb on the scale of the Kosovo war.

Historical evidence suggests that trying to coerce the Assad regime to make concessions to the rebels would be a long shot, and that, for it to have any chance, it would require a bombing campaign more intense and prolonged than contemplated. And what if only the more modest purpose is declared -- to deter Assad from further use of chemical weapons -- but the regime nevertheless does it again? That would box the president into a choice between embarrassing failure and open-ended escalation, and it would raise messy questions about what an initial congressional authorization meant for that new choice, which would place Obama and Congress in a more terrible bind than they faced at the outset.

Ending the war -- by adding enough U.S. power to the equation to enable rebels to eventually defeat Assad -- is the most ambitious possible objective. It could also be the most legitimate, since, rather than the indecisive and ambiguous psychological effects from a modest attack, it would offer a clear material benefit to justify American action that kills people -- which, make no mistake, is what the use of military force is about. Although it may be the most legitimate objective for an act of war, however, it is the least plausible for Syria. First, there is no constituency in the United States anywhere on the political spectrum for action that is seen clearly as going to war, and there has been no apparent consideration within he administration of an option for limited action that is intense, prolonged, and decisive. Second, even a massive air assault would not be guaranteed to defeat Assad. Third, and most problematic for all of American options toward Syria, there is no reason to believe that a military campaign that worked would produce a good result -- that it would be good pro-Western rebels who take power, rather than bad Islamist radicals even worse than Assad. Thus, the administration has already made clear that the aim of American force in this case is not regime change. But then one might ask the proponents of air strikes: If not to help end the war by either coercion or outright victory, are the other objectives a good enough warrant for using indecisive force that kills people?

Foreign credibility as a concern assumes that other governments will not take American deterrent threats seriously if they see Washington back down from one. This concern overlaps with the rationale for punishment as an objective. Research on previous cases by Daryl Press, a professor at Dartmouth, however, has shown that concerns about credibility are overblown. Nevertheless, it will not be a good lesson for reckless regimes if Obama fails to follow through on a deterrent threat. Since Iran and especially North Korea are more potentially dangerous than Syria, this is not a minor concern. Affirming credibility in the eyes of hardened dictators, however, most probably follows from success in achieving some significant strategic objective. Punitive attacks that appear paltry, indecisive, and bearable will not convince third parties that you can’t get away with crossing Uncle Sam at an acceptable price.

Domestic credibility is a dubious justification for bombing another country, but it inevitably looms large for politicians in a democracy. Despite fervent demands from some, like Senator John McCain, however, Obama’s bow to Congress reflects the strength of opposition to combat action. Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. As is usual in politics, compromise between conflicting demands may seem the path of least resistance. Light and brief air strikes are attractive because they do something to undercut hawkish critics, and they alarm dovish critics less than stronger action. But practical political compromise does not always make sensible strategy. As the greatest philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz wrote, “A short jump is certainly easier than a long one: but no one wanting to get across a wide ditch would begin by jumping half-way.”

As with other post–Cold War atrocities, the use of chemical weapons has led to calls for the United States to “do something” to stop the perpetrators. Yet exactly what that something should be -- which would not make things worse, not cost too much in blood and treasure, and not have unanticipated consequences -- is utterly unclear. The two contradictions make the policy problem a dilemma in the true sense, a choice among unsatisfactory options. Congress must now share responsibility for determining the least bad way out. Indecisive use of military power emerges as the compromise between apparently unacceptable alternatives of doing nothing and doing too much. This is jumping halfway across Clausewitz’s ditch; it is solving Solomon’s choice by actually splitting the baby. In other words, it is politically logical but strategically unwise, and it is both understandable and tragic.

-This article was published first in Foreign Affairs on 05/09/2013. -RICHARD K. BETTS is Director of the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University and an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. His most recent book is American Force: Dangers, Delusions, and Dilemmas in National Security.

Syria's moderate rebels wane as extremist forces dominate

By Charles Lister

 

 

The most notable trend in Syria in 2013 has been the increasing strategic supremacy of Islamist groups, particularly in the northern half of the country. Every major opposition military victory since September 2012 has been Islamist-led.

 

The success of Islamist groups has damaged the image of the uprising and undermined the West-backed Syrian Military Council (SMC). And the latest claims of clashes between the Free Syrian Army and Al Qaeda's Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) - which dominated the media headlines a little over two weeks ago, though rebel fighters denied the clashes took place - appeared related to this shift in power.

 

The SMC has sought to reverse this shift by appealing for military assistance. So far, the SMC's appeals have resulted in pledges by the United States but no apparent action, making the SMC's leadership in Syria seem increasingly unconvincing. Apparent attempts by SMC commanders to present ISIL militants and their allies as a negative influence on the conflict are almost certainly an attempt to persuade the West of the council's urgent need for increased backing.

 

That the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG in Kurdish) felt the need to launch pre-emptive attacks on Islamist forces in the northeastern province of Hasakah on July 17 underlined that Kurds are also aware of the increasing dominance of Islamists in Syria.

 

Today, opposition military forces can be divided into three categories: groups loyal to the SMC, most of whom maintain the FSA brand name; Salafists, whose ranks are dominated by Syrians; and jihadists, who increasingly recruit from across the Islamic world and many of whom have at least sympathy for Al Qaeda.

 

While the first two overlap somewhat, with several large Salafist group leaders present within the SMC, the increasingly questionable extent of their ultimate allegiance to the SMC and their clearly tight coordination with jihadists is seeing their alignment shifting, especially in northern Syria.

 

As such, Salafist groups, notably Harakat Ahrar Al Sham Al Islamiyya, now represent the most strategically powerful players in the conflict and serious rivals to the moderate SMC leadership.

 

The Salafist contingent within Syria's insurgency is dominated by the Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) and the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF). While the former has taken a hard line in avoiding relations with the SMC, several SILF constituent group leaders are members of the SMC. However, SILF's organisational value as a singly organised and commanded front appears to have eroded in recent months. Moreover, on the ground, major SILF groups have developed increasingly close relations with Harakat Ahrar Al Sham Al Islamiyya, the SIF's pre-eminent force.

 

While the SILF has described itself as "moderately Islamist" and as keen to maintain relations with the FSA, several core members - Suqor Al Sham, Liwa Dawud, Liwa Al Islam and Liwa Al Tawhid, each containing several thousand members - have operated increasingly independently in 2013. Rumours exchanged among Islamist militants in June 2013 went so far as to claim any or all three of Suqor Al Sham, Liwa Dawud and Liwa Al Tawhid could one day join the SIF.

 

In northern Syria, these three groups coordinate on a daily basis with Harakat Ahrar Al Sham Al Islamiyya, which is arguably the most powerful insurgent actor in Syria. It regularly initiates multi-group offensives, consistently including Jabhat Al Nusra and members of SILF, and is unique in having been involved in every major base or military facility capture in Syria since September 2012.

 

In addition to its military capabilities, it operates a "technical division", which has conducted successful cyber attacks on the pro-government Syrian Electronic Army and Addounia TV. The division was likely responsible for designing the group's freely downloadable application for Android mobile phones, released on July 10.

 

On June 8, Harakat Ahrar Al Sham Al Islamiyya leader Hassan Aboud appeared publicly for the first time - revealing his real name and identity - in an interview on Al Jazeera. Over the next week, he gave a keynote speech at a conference of the International Union of Islamic Scholars in Cairo and an interview on Egypt's Salafist Al Nas TV.

 

This rapid move into the public eye, on a regional level, suggested Mr Aboud and the SIF were being presented, with the backing of external actors, as a viable Salafist alternative to the existing moderate SMC-led opposition.

 

After Mr Aboud's public appearances, his group's militants launched several new offensives and the technical division began operations. Crucially, Harakat Ahrar Al Sham Al Islamiyya has demonstrated competence in governance within areas under its control, running extensive networks of food, water and fuel provision across northern Syria. It even operates the eastern province of Raqqah's largest water pumping station, several dams and a road and bridge repair company. The group also provides free Islamic education to children in Idlib, Aleppo and Hama.

 

Since the fall of Qusayr in Homs on June 5, the Syrian military has led successful offensives in Homs and in northern Damascus, placing increasing pressure on areas controlled largely by FSA-branded and SMC-linked groups. As such, the moderate opposition has come under increasing strain while northern Syria remains dominated by Salafists and jihadists and faces a lesser level of military pressure. The Salafists also appear to be benefiting from higher levels of backing from regional, Gulf-based states and individuals.

 

There is a power shift underway within the Syrian insurgency and it is not one that will be welcomed in western government circles.

 

- this commentary was published in The National on 31/07/2013

-Charles Lister is an analyst at IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre, London UK. An expanded version of this article was first published in IHS Jane's Islamic Affairs Analyst