Cognitive shift? Interestingly, compared with only a few months ago, the signals are increasingly linked to geo-strategy, war, geopolitics. The other issues remain crucial and did not disappear, but we can start seeing the overall global system changing, in terms of preeminence given to types of challenges too.
Click on the image below to read on Paper.Li
Considering the current state of play, scenario 3: A Real Victory in Syria, and its sub-scenarios are rather unlikely in the short-term. However, they are worth outlining because they bring analytical insight into dynamics and potential strategies to favour or counter one or the other possibility, according to interests, and because they could be relevant for the medium term. The chaos and beginning of “warlordism” that characterizes the Syrian situation, as emphasised by analysts, (e.g. Joshua Landis, 1 May 2013, Syria Comment; Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, 14 May 2013, Jihadology; see also first post of the series on Syria) lead to the relatively small probability to see any of those scenarios (or rather variations on them) happening. Nonetheless, as for scenario 1: Peace in Geneva and scenario 2: No Syrian in Geneva, and besides signals indicating an improvement in the ambient disorder, we shall attempt to outline indicators that could be more specifically monitored for assessment of likelihood and timeline.
Once the victory of one of the belligerents over all others happens, then the victor is in a strong domestic position, and may start reconstructing a true peace.
The first years would still be difficult and the new government would have to develop novel ways to stabilize the situation, making sure the vanquished would not find a way back towards violence and war. The state administration would have to be reconstructed where it has been destroyed so that the mission of political authorities may be carried upon successfully. Yet, we are in a political configuration that is much easier than what we had in scenario 1. Indeed, war cannot truly be won on a given territory without fighting troops that are sufficiently united to enable proper strategy, operations and tactics, and without a population that is mobilized and/or controlled (the “support” given by the people can be achieved with more or less coercion, but needs to be there – see notably the literature on counter-insurgency, and also theories – and practice – of People’s war). Thus, achieving victory means that the victor has also succeeded in having an efficient monopoly of the means of violence (the winning fighting troops and the coercive apparatus within the population, ranging from mild to violent), as well as a way to extract surplus from the population in exchange for services (including waging the war).
As a result, winning the war implies that the fundamental processes underlying functioning political authorities have been implemented and mastered. The change from war and emergency to peace must still be achieved, while the new political authorities must consolidate their legitimacy, and those are crucial challenges, hence the difficult first years, but the foundations for succeeding are there.
How the stabilization from war to peace would be done, with which type of political authorities, and under which kind of regime, would vary with the victorious belligerent. The international impact would change accordingly, with, in turn, consequences on the Syrian domestic situation and the type of peace the victor would succeed in implementing.
If the victorious groups were Salafi-Jihadi, they would create a theocracy, a strict Sharia state. If we refer to Jabhat al-Nusra’s April declaration (Barber, 14 April 2013, Syria Comment), then they would seek to create the Islamic State of Al-Sham, i.e. a political entity covering the Levant. If we refer to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Al-Qa’ida in Iraq, then their objective would be to create the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) (Ibid). As explained by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi (14 May 2013) and by Lund (22 May 2013, Syria Comment), who also reviews other related analyses, we are currently under a thick fog of war as to what is happening within the Al-Qa’ida factions in Syria: we do not know exactly if there is strife between various groups, how important it is, and which side, if any, will win.
Whatever the reality that will emerge, and for the sake of this scenario, thus assuming that the victorious groups are Salafi-jihadi, the current territorial Syria (with or without the Syrian Kurdistan, according to the way the war would be waged on that part of the territory and won or lost there) would most probably be seen as the heart from which the war to conquer the rest of the Levant (with or without Iraq according to case) could be waged. The new Al Sham would thus be expansionist and carrying the Salafi-Jihadi aim that “seek[s] to establish an islamic caliphate that would encompass the entire Umma, or Muslim community” (O’Bagy, September 2012:17) through all means, from overt war to supporting terrorist networks and individual jihad abroad.
The caliphate or Khilafa is explained in and defined with different terms according to authors, yet similarities remain, notably expansion:
“The most famous exposition of the Islamic theory of State was by the scholar al-Mawardi, who claimed that the establishment of the Caliphate was an Islamic obligation agreed upon by the scholars. His treatise al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya (the rules of governance) remains one of the major classical references for Islamic political theory. In it, he explains that the ruler is either elected by the peoples’ representatives or through being nominated by the previous Caliph. The Caliph’s responsibilities include implementing the hudood (punishments explicitly proscribed in Islam for acts such as theft, rebellion, public acts of extra-marital intercourse), collecting and distributing the taxes according to the Sharia prescriptions, and to protect and expand the borders of the Islamic State.” Dr. Reza Pankhurst, political scientist and historian, specializing in the Middle East and Islamic movements, “Understanding Calls to a Caliphate,” 22 August 2011, Foreign Policy Journal.
“Khilafa (caliphate) for Islamists is the idea that they are duty bound to establish “Islamic states” – described by vague, theoretical, idealistic platitudes – that would then be united in a global, pan-Islamic state or ‘new caliphate’.” Quilliam Foundation researcher Dr Usama Hasan for BBC News, 24 May 2013
“Both historically and doctrinally, the caliphate’s function is to wage jihad, whenever and wherever possible, to bring the infidel world under Islamic dominion and enforce sharia. In fact, most of what is today called the “Muslim world”—from Morocco to Pakistan—was conquered, bit by bit, by a caliphate that began in Arabia in 632.
A jihad-waging, sharia-enforcing caliphate represents a permanent, existentialist enemy—not a temporal foe that can be bought or pacified through diplomacy or concessions. Such a caliphate is precisely what Islamists around the world are feverishly seeking to establish.” Raymond Ibrahim, associate director of the Middle East Forum, 8 March 2011, Gatestone Institute.
Despite the necessity for expansion, aggressive actions might also be delayed, or slowed, to allow first for consolidation at home.
However, if the rivalry between Salafi-Jihadi groups were to re-appear after a victory on the Syrian territory, then the chance for consolidating peace at home would be reduced because of internecine struggle, following, in essence on those that would be taking place currently. In the meantime, the potential for aggressive jihadi actions would be enhanced, as all groups would want to assert their Jihadi credentials and use them to ideologically motivate fighters, while probably also alienating part of the population, which would again contribute to lower the odds to fully stabilize the situation domestically.
The states directly threatened by an aggressive Al-Sham – and other similar regional entities – would have no other choice than to retaliate. The prospects for a regional and global conflagration would be heightened. Peace in Syria would have been short.
To date, the likelihood to see this scenario happening is summarized by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi (14 May 2013): “In the midst of such chaos, I see it as unlikely that JAN [Jabhat al-Nusra] will either substantially advance its position or lose ground beyond likely strongholds in the north and east. While JAN may routinely be described as the most effective fighting force, it can be too easy to overstate the group’s actual size and influence. To sum up, I see an equilibrium of disorder developing. »
Using Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi’s article as well as Lund’s (22 May 2013), we can come up with a few indicators that should be followed, besides following the course of the war in Syria:
———-
* Besides a real victory for one of the belligerents, Edward Luttwak, in his article “Give war a chance,” (Foreign Affairs; Jul/Aug 1999; 78, 4) sees a second possibility that could lead to a true peace: the exhaustion of all belligerents. I shall not here take into account this hypothesis because in a short to medium term future, it seems to be even less likely to happen than scenario 3, considering the multiple existing external involvements.
Detailed bibliography and primary sources forthcoming.
Uncertainties: Which alliances and partnership will hold, which one will fail, which ones will emerge, for how long? Will the Syrian peace conference occur and will it be successful, at which cost and with which geo-strategic impact? Is the European crisis over or not at all? Will Europeans continue to withstand the pressure, and for how long, and what will be next? Will the mammoth monetary experiment endeavoured by Japan be lethal or was it the right daring move? And what if the global financial and economic crisis was not at all over? Is climate change enhancing the likelihood of mega-tornadoes or not? How will the world face the various environmental pressures and the unintended consequences of the remedies pushed forward? Those rising and spreading uncertainties could show that we are now fully moving on a path fraught with multiple systemic shifts., with more dangers and threats, but also with more space for human liberty, if we are wise enough to take the measure of the challenges ahead.
The diplomatic talks fail and the international conference in Geneva does not take place or is a face-saving sham (see “Scenario 1: Peace in Geneva?” and its sub scenarios for what could result from a true international conference).
Considering the current forces on the ground and their balance, we would face a lengthening conflict (probably over years rather than months) with rising prospects of regional and global involvement and chaos. The scope and depth of regional and global spill over would increase with the duration of the Syrian civil war, and, in turn, fuel it.
The spill over and contagion would most probably take four shapes (not mutually exclusive). First, we would face any action ranging from covert operations to war-like actions to war between states (all probably escalating towards wars). This aspect, in its less intense forms, is actually already operating, although the states involved are very cautious not to cross the line (in terms of official statement and language) that would force them into war, as shows, for example, the two Israeli raids on Syria and the way they are reported (among others, see the US apology for confirming Israeli strikes – Jerusalem Post 19 May 2013) . The political part of this spill over is being continually enacted, reminding us of Von Clausewitz famous “War is the mere continuation of politics by other means.” Second, we would face a similar range of actions but between states and actors dubbed “non-state actors,” yet vying for state power). Those two forms of contagion are usually imagined or expected as occurring within the Middle East, lately enlarged to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This is however too narrow a view, as Russia reminded us on 17 May 2013 when it sent “at least 12 warships to patrol waters near its naval base in Tartous, Syria.” (Times of Israel, 17 May 2013) to underline the importance of its interest in Syria and in the region, as underlined, for example by Eldar (AlMonitor, 19 May 2013). The American debate over the type, value and wisdom of an American involvement in Syria is another obvious example of the way the Syrian conflict spills over beyond the region.
Third, countries welcoming Syrian refugees (1,52 million people on 20 May 2013 – UNHCR – see detailed map below) will face a risk of destabilization stemming from the massive influx of people in countries that were not prepared for them, and were already sometimes facing difficult situations. Furthermore, refugees may be linked to fighting units and carry on activities linked to the Syrian war in the host country, thus heightening the risk of seeing those countries dragged into the conflict. Those factors and resulting tensions are already at work, notably in Lebanon (e.g. Euronews 18 May 2013), Jordan (e.g. C. Phillips, The World Today, Volume 68, Number 8/9), Turkey (e.g. Ibid., Krohn, The Atlantic, 17 May 2013).
A fourth, more unconventional, form of contagion must also be considered. As the crisis lengthens in Europe, European individuals attracted to Salafi-jihadi would increasingly travel to and from Syria (see ICSR Insight, April 2013), heightening not only the direct threat of terrorism within Europe (Europol TE-SAT 2013: 7, 20, 24) and possibly in the U.S. and Canada but also the spread of Salafi-jihadi cells. Considering the crisis and the “fragilising” policies of austerity and “externalization” – i.e. privatization of the state – (especially those concerning the legitimate monopoly of violence), actions by Salafi-jihadi cells could heighten the risk of polarization, for example by favouring further the rise and strengthening of already spreading right-wing extremist movements. Crisis-related unrest could be a favourable environment for violent actions from Salafi-jihadi cells, that would then feed into a more generalized political turmoil. The spread of Salafi-jihadi ideology in countries hit not only by the crisis but also by a lack of hope and vision as well as by denial – whatever the hardship and dangers faced by citizens – is not to discard. In this light, the novel vision promoted by the new Pope Francois 1st, warning against “the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly human goal” (Squires, The Telegraph, 16 May 2013) might be considered as a potential counterweight.
Similar heightened risks would exist for any country where nationals have found their way to fight in Syria, as for example, Tunisia (Sgrena, IPS, 6 April 2013), and increase with the fragility of the domestic political situation.
Until a real peace takes hold in Syria (and this is thus true too for scenarios 1.1.2. and 1.2.2., see previous post), it will be most necessary to use all anticipatory intelligence or strategic foresight and warning means, foreign policy instruments, and, ultimately, military intervention (which may also be seen as a de facto spill over of the conflict), to try preventing further spill over of the Syrian civil war, assuming this is still possible.
In scenarios 1 and 2, the efficiency of the support provided to the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces will need to be intensely monitored, and aid – lethal and non lethal, official and covert – will have to be steered according to results and potential consequences. In scenario 1, this specific aid, as well as all support (see state of play, part I, II, III) given to specific parties should disappear once a peace agreement is signed. In scenario 2, all aid will need to be monitored in the framework of the types of involvement chosen by the various international actors.
What could enhance the likelihood to see such a scenario happening? Events happening currently in the MENA region – and beyond – as well as on the Syrian battlefield must also be read with this dimension in mind. The potential spoilers below must be seen as related and most of the time feeding into each other.
Scenario 2 should lead either to Scenario 1 or to Scenario 3 (A real Victory in Syria, forthcoming). The main challenge we are facing here, as analysts, is to determine when one or the other will become likely or more likely. The timeline will depend upon what happens under the fog of war, knowing that the thicker the fog, the heightened the possibility for surprise. We shall thus have to constantly monitor the war situation, and, accordingly, revise – and improve – all possible scenarios. For example, a potential break up of Syria would then also have to be included as sub-scenario (for Scenario 1 and Scenario 3).
Scenario 2 could also, theoretically, lead to a Scenario 4, the invasion and annexation of Syria by an external power. However, considering the current international norms and settings, such a scenario is most unlikely and may be put aside. Should those norms change, or should the current international tension and crises bring about severe upheavals, then the likelihood of scenario 4 would have to be revised and the scenario developed. We may note an unintended side-effect stemming from the international ban on war for conquest. If it improved greatly peace and stability, it also tends to remove an incentive on domestic actors to stop civil war: the warring factions do not risk to see an external actor use the fragility brought about by civil war to annex their territory, thus they can continue fighting.
———-
Detailed bibliography and primary sources forthcoming.
Redrawing the global strategic and geopolitical map: From the Syrian civil war and its impact on the region and beyond, with its many uncertainties, moving alliances and dilemmas, to the China-Japan unrelenting tension over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, through the rush for the Arctic, without forgetting the European quagmire and its multi-faceted apparently slow-moving polarization, this is actually the global political and strategic map that is being redrawn. How it will look like is still shrouded in the fog of war … or rather of wars, crises, and battles, present and, unfortunately, to come.
Click on the image below to read on Paper.Li
(Updated 22 May 2013) Now that we know and understand better the actors present on the Syrian battlefield, we may start outlining scenarios regarding first plausible futures for Syria and prospects for peace over the short to medium term, and second the regional implications of those scenarios, as the regional and even global geostrategic dimensions of the war in Syria are becoming clearer everyday.
The diplomatic talks promoting a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war are successful and negotiations start.
The actors brought around the table are the NC and the Supreme Joint Military Command Council (SMC), the regime of Bashar al-Assad represented by a face-saving person for the regime and a person that would be acceptable to all other parties (assuming such a person exist), the Supreme Kurdish Council (SKC) and the Salafi-Nationalist groups.
An external peace can be brokered. We would have a very fragile peace including all actors except those fighting for a global Jihad. Considering the current level of escalation and the intentions of the most extremist factions, if we want to increase the likelihood to see a real positive peace – corresponding to many Western countries’ declared foreign policy vision, upholding the rule of law and human rights – last, then we need to make sure that the following elements are included: a strong presence and support of the international community (despite the public deficit challenge mentioned above), a properly devised strategic plan and real actions rather than unrealistic pledges that are inherently escalating when what must be stopped is also the “people”s war” efficient policy of the extremist factions.
Timing would also be of the essence once the peace is brokered, as speed and real efficiency are crucial. Notably, and considering the heightened sensitivity of a people having had to go through a civil war, as well as the religious environment, corruption and various dysfunctions within the peace-building intervening system, should be avoided.
It would thus be crucial to start working towards a proper plan to construct the peace as soon as possible, using all bilateral and multilateral cooperation channels. To make sure the peace-building process is properly implemented, actionable early warning and monitoring systems should be planned and constructed from the start.
The next five to ten years would remain a very delicate period with heightened risks of re-escalation towards war.
The negotiations fail and Syria falls again into civil war, but with changed conditions: the failure will have a price for each actor involved, according to the reasons for and conditions surrounding the failure. The global-jihadi groups would most probably benefit most.
The actors brought around the table are the NC and the SMC, the regime of Bashar al-Assad represented by a face-saving person for the regime and a person that would be acceptable to all other parties (assuming such a person exist) and the SKC.
The Salafi-Nationalist groups (all or most of them), even those having linked to the SMC, would refuse to participate in the negotiations.
The negotiations succeed. The external peace that is brokered is even more fragile. The prospects for successfully implementing it would be greatly reduced. All the risks already present in the previous sub-scenario (1.1.1) would be heightened. With a level of power (resources, troops and actions) constant compared with sub-scenario 1.1.1., the likelihood of success would be inversely proportional to the policy and actions of the Salafi-Nationalist groups, ranging from only refusing to participate in the negotiations and settlement to actively denouncing and fighting them. To increase the likelihood of success, the level of power applied would have to be proportionally enhanced and the length of time during which this power would be necessary would have to be increased. In other words, more troops and more civilian personal, as well as more resources would have to be dedicated to Syria for longer.
The negotiations fail and Syria is dragged again into civil war.
Scenario similar to 1.1.2 but with a very strong advantage for the Salafi groups, be they nationalist or jihadi.
What could enhance the likelihood to see such a scenario happening? What are the supporting facts increasing the plausibility of scenario 1?
The diplomatic talks fail … to be continued.
——
Detailed bibliography and primary sources forthcoming.
This article will be the last one that presents the current state of play and the five categories of actors fighting in and over Syria.
The rise of the two groups of factions presented below – the Syrian Sunni factions intending to install an Islamist state in Syria and the Sunni extremist factions with a global jihadi agenda – as well as their mobilization power has been, first, eased by the protracted quality of the conflict and the despair it implied among Syrian people. It was then facilitated by the initial inability of the moderates to find support in the West, thus to demonstrate their power.
The first nexus is composed of more extreme Islamist groups – compared with those seen previously – and of “Nationalist Salafis” groups – to use Lund (2013:14) terminology, noting that scholar of Jihad in Syria, Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi questions the very dichotomy between Nationalist Salafis and Jihadi Salafis (see below update 8 July).
Nationalist Salafis want to create an Islamic Sharia state in Syria. Lund (2013: 14) quotes Abdulrahman Alhaj, an expert on Syrian Islamism he interviewed in January 2013:
“When it comes to the salafis, we have to separate between two things. There are publicly declared salafi groups who have an experience of [armed] salafi work outside Syria, and who have a systematic salafi thinking. These groups, the salafiya-jihadiya [salafi-jihadism], are not many, but they affect people’s thinking.”
“The others are young, extremist people. They are Sunni Muslims who just follow this path because there is a lot of violence. Day after day, they come face to face with violence, so they adopt salafism, but they are not really part of the salafiya-jihadiya ideologically. Like Ahrar al-Sham: they are not part of the salafi-jihadi movement. There are of course real salafis among them, but mostly they are just extremist sunnis without a systematic salafi ideology. It’s very different from Jabhat al-Nosra.”
Within those groups one finds two major alliances, who are attempting to unite factions.
The Syria Liberation Front (SLF) also known as the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) factions (Jabhat Tahrir Souriya or Jabhat al-Tahrir al-Souriya al-Islamiya) was created in September 2012 when some factions ended their associations with the FSA and dissolved with the creation of the Islamic Front on 22 November 2013. The groups that are mentioned as belonging to the SLF are: two of Syria largest Islamist groups, Kataeb al-Farouq and Suqour al-Sham (Lund 2013: 16), Liwa al-Tawhid and Liwa al-Islam (Lund 3013: 27 using Noah Bonsey, Lund, 3 April 2013). According to Lund, most of the SLF factions are also now part of the Supreme Joint Military Command Council (Ibid: 13), despite their ideological outlook, which also underlines again the pragmatic feature of affiliations and the shifting and lose characteristic of alliances, as suggested previously.
The SILF/SLF would count an estimated 37.000 fighters (Ignatius, 2 Avril 2013; see also Lund’s related comment, 3 April 2013).
The Syrian Islamic Front (SIF) (Al-Jabha al-Islamiya al-Souriya) was created in December 2012 under the leadership of the more powerful Ahrar al-Sham and dissolved with the creation of the Islamic Front on 22 November 2013. It initially included 11 factions, covering most of the territory (see mapping below and previous versions of the mapping accessible below), which were, in January and February 2013, reduced to 7 through the merging of various groups (Lund, 2013: 25-27). Since April 2013, the SIF counts one new member, the Haqq Battalions Gathering (Tajammou Kataeb al-Haqq) (Lund, May 3 2013). Between 10.000 and 30.000 fighters could be part of the SIF (Lund, 2013: 23).
Talks between initial SIF groups and the SLF had taken place when the SLF was created but failed for various reasons, from ideological to disagreements between groups.
To access the actors’ mapping (updated 27/01/2014), become a member of The Red Team Analysis Society. If you are interested in specific actors’ mapping and latest updates, 
contact us.
If you are already a member, please login (don’t forget to refresh the page). You can access the page through my account, click on view in “My membership table” to access the list of the articles available to members only).
Lund (Ibid: 17-19) qualifies the SIF as an Islamist “Third Way,” strictly salafist but also pragmatic, able to discuss with the West, and to cooperate on the ground with the SMC or with salafi-jihadi groups, while also criticizing the latter, as shows the 4 May 2013 statement by Ahrar al-Sham on “Jabhat al-Nosra’s recent declaration of allegiance to al-Qaida’s Ayman al-Zawahiri.” (Lund, 4 May 2013):
“It seeks to demonstrate a strict salafi identity, and makes no attempt to hide its opposition to secularism and democracy. but it also tries to highlight a streak of pragmatism and moderation, intended to reassure both syrians and foreign policymakers. In this way, it sets itself apart as an Islamist ”third way”, different from both the most radical fringe of the uprising, and from its Western-backed islamist mainstream.” (Lund, 2013: 17)
However, the SIF aims at establishing a Sunni Islamist Theocracy, allowing only some modicum of consultation and political freedom within the bounds of sharia law (Ibid: 19). It has already started working towards this goal when, as described by Lund (Ibid: 25), it develops a “humanitarian and non-military activity.” It does not only fight but also plays the role of a real political authority, which strengthens both its mobilization power and its resource-base. Thus, overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad is only a step towards achieving its objectives, and the “Third Way” may only last temporarily, assuming the SIF continues its current course, and finds access to sufficient and secure resources and fundings (for details on funding see Ibid: 27).
For more details on the SIF and, among others, salafism in Syria, I highly recommend Lund’s report.
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi in his meticulous analysis of the relationships between JAN and ISIS (see below), for the region of Raqqah (24 June 2013 for Jihadology), following common demonstrations, questions:
“In Raqqah itself, further evidence of an ISIS-JAN unity became clear in the counter-demonstrations on the ground. Here is one such video, featuring several youths holding the banners of Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham al-Islamiya (which, to recall, was the main group of battalions responsible for the rebel takeover of Raqqah in March), ISIS and the general flag of jihad.
… The recent developments should also debunk the false dichotomy posed by some commentators of ‘Salafist nationalist’ Syrian Islamic Front [SIF] groups like Harakat Ahrar ash-Sham al-Islamiya versus transnational jihadist groups (cf. my overview of statements put out by various factions on Sheikh Jowlani’s bayah to Sheikh Aymenn al-Zawahiri).”
21 October 2013: Facing the Fog of War in Syria: The Syrian Islamists Play the Regional “Game of Thrones”
27 January 2014: the Rise of the Salafi-Nationalists?
The last nexus is composed of salafi-jihadi groups or salafis groups with a global agenda, such as Al Qaida, and includes many foreign fighters – Tunisian, Libyan, Iraqi, Chechen (e.g. Solovieva, 26 April 2013, AlMonitor; Kavkav center, 26 March 2013) and European. ICSR Insight estimates that “between 140 and 600 Europeans” from fourteen countries, “have gone to Syria since early 2011, representing 7-11 per cent of the foreign fighter total” (April 2013).
The best known group is Jahbat Al-Nosra or Al-Nusra, created in January 2012 and declared a terrorist group by the U.S. in December 2012. It is seen “as the most effective fighting force in Syria” (Bergen and Rowland, 10 April 2013). In November 2012, Washington Post David Ignatius, using sources from the FSA, considered it included “between 6,000 and 10,000 fighters.”
In mid-April, Jabhat al-Nosra, answering to al-Zawahiri and then to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, leader of Al Qaida in Iraq (ISI, Islamic State of Iraq) and as excellently summarized by Lund (4 May 2013) “promised to follow every order from Zawahiri as long as this does not contravene sharia law,” while refusing merging with ISI (see for full detailed analysis and translated documents, Barber, 14 April 2013). Jabhat al-Nosra thus asserts an Al Qaida in Syria, in a nationalist move that is not without recalling salafi-nationalist groups, and stresses its aim to establish an Islamist state in Syria, “The Islamic State of al-Sham” (ISIS – see below update 8 July). Al-Sham stands for Bilad al-Sham, i.e. The Levant (today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Israel, and potentially the Hatay Province of Turkey). The choice of words could potentially indicate a wish to revise borders, although such aim would need to be proven.
Until the more recent succesfull offensive of pro-Assad groups (Spyer, 3 May 2013), the salafis nationalists and the global jihadis tended to be most successful militarily, seizing important locations and infrastructure, while they mobilized effectively, somehow along the lines of a “People’s War” (less the Maoist ideology).
This, in turn, prompted progressively the beginning of a change of policy regarding the delivery and type of aid given to the moderate factions by their supporting external powers. It also potentially started to soften the position of Russia, concerned by the development of jihadi terrorism, thus allowing for improvement in diplomatic talks towards negotiations, as explained by Putin in an interview with German broadcaster ARD (Ria Novosti, 5 April 2013), and as seems to be ongoing even if chaotically.
Aymen Jawad Al Tamimi evaluates the relationships between JAN and ISIS, where they sometimes designate the same entity, but not always, through a meticulous and thorough regional analyses:
Now we have described all the actors on the Syrian battlefield. Now we shall be able to put forward a few scenarios.
————
To Scenario 1: Peace in Geneva.
——-
Detailed bibliography.
In 2013, the Kurds in Syria have their own agenda, which will determine their actions. As the other Kurdish communities in the region, their priority is to create a semi-autonomous Kurdistan where they live, notably in the NorthEast of Syria. Kurdish enclaves in Syria can also be found around Jarabulus – North – and Afrin – Northwest, North of Aleppo (Tejel, 2009: xiii). As analyzed by Spyer, their recent history tells the Kurds in Syria that mastering their own destiny is the only way to live decently and according to their own way of life, thus benefiting for once from the bounty of their land, in terms of oil and crops (Spyer, March 9 2013). The Syrian Kurds’ objective was again reasserted by Sipan Hamo, commander-in-chief of …
Our own worst enemies – One major lesson that can be learned for the Boston tragedy is that efforts at improving systems and alertness can never stop in times of heightened tension and threats multiplication, at least not as long as problems have not been properly analyzed, causes courageously tackled, and real solutions imagined and implemented. Winning battles do not always mean winning a war, and deep-seated systemic problems will not go away out of wishful thinking, old remedies and temporary efforts, even if the last 60 years of relative peace, easy growth and consumerist society have tried to make us believe otherwise. Hence the various issues that are plaguing our contemporary did not go away those last weeks (and years), but, on the contrary, continue to escalate, while imaginative solutions so far only concern extreme environments, notably space. Should we not also take lessons from this strategically imaginative approach to apply it to other problems?
Click on the image below to read on Paper.Li.
Keeping in mind the complex and fluid character of the situation in Syria we addressed previously, this article and the next ones will present the current state of play and the various categories of actors fighting in and over Syria, namely the pro-Assad groups, the moderate opposition forces and the Muslim Brotherhood “related” groups, the Islamist groups fighting for an Islamist state in Syria, the groups linked to a global Jihadi Front, and, finally, the Kurds in Syria, without forgetting the external actors. Scenarios for the future will follow from this assessment. The scenarios will then evolve, notably in terms of likelihood, from changes on the battleground and in interactions between all actors.
The regime and government of Bashar al-Assad has lost full domestic legitimacy (or there would not be a civil war) and a large part of international legitimacy, but it remains recognized and backed notably by China and Russia – both with veto power at the UN security council – Iran and Iraq. Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon opposed the Arab League’s “decision to give the opposition the vacant Syrian seat” (The Guardian, 26 March 2013), suspended since November 2011.
The pro-Assad Syrian fighting groups are composed of the regular Army and the Republican Guards, as well as pro-Assad militias (both Alawite and composite – Sunni, Christian, Druze), all backed up by the Security Forces and the Police Force. All Alawites should not be considered as supporting the Assad regime, as shows the conference organised in Cairo on 23 March 2013 by Alawites promoting a “democratic alternative” (Reuters).
The details below are summarized from the excellent report by Joseph Holliday, The Assad Regime: from Counterinsurgency to Civil War (March 2013 for the ISW).
According to Holliday, Al-Assad has a policy of only “electively deploying [t]his loyal core of military supporters.” As a result “a working estimate of 65,000 to 75,000 loyal, deployable Syrian regime troops emerges” out of “the Syrian Armed Forces, a basis that includes over 300,000 troops (including Air Force and Air defense personnel)” (p.27). From this figure should be removed casualties, estimated by Holliday at 7620 killed and 30500 wounded by end of December 2012 (see table p.28), which represents approximatively half of the regime estimated deployed troops, partially or completely compensated by recruitment (p.29). As underlined by Holliday and the International Crisis Group, those men are however a “hardcore nucleus of regime supporters”(p.29). A decentralization of command and control, allowing for flexibility and initiative by low- and mid-level officers, according to local conditions, was implemented during the Summer 2012 (Ibid).
(For a more detailed and clear explanation, read Holliday, Appendix 3) They are constituted of four intelligence services, whose “primary mission was to ‘monitor and intervene aggressively against potential domestic threats to the regime’ (Campbell, 2009).” (p.54) However, they are now acting more like militias than like intelligence services (p.30). In addition, each operates its own prisons. Each service is present throughout the whole territory with a branch in each province. Using an interview he realized, Holliday writes that “one former regime insider suggested it [The Mukhabarat] could be as large as 200,000 security officers and personnel, but this figure could include administrative personnel and informants and cannot be verified” (p. 55), and, most probably, not all of them are fighters. (p.30).
As underlined by Holliday, fear, reprisals, massacres and atrocities of minorities at the hand of extremists may only increase the number of people joining the various militias.
Iran’s action with the militias would support Smyth‘s point (2013), according to which Iran is also preparing for a post al-Assad situation by creating sub-networks within the Syrian Shia community, as well as by supporting other (Sunni) militiamen. Holliday suggested a similar Iranian role in a post al-Assad Syria (p.32).
To the Syrian forces must be added foreign groups such as the Lebanese Hezbollah, groups coming from Iraq with Iranian support such the Mahdi Army (Muqtada al-Sadr’s Liwa al-Yom al-Mauwud), Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, Kata’ib Hizbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force (Ammar Abdulhamid, 2013; Smyth, 2013). See the full report for further details, pp.11-12.
See here for detailed bibliography and list of primary sources.
An umbrella group of various opposition and fighting factions, of more or less moderate obedience, the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (also translated as National Coalition for the Forces of the Revolution and the Syrian Opposition – Lund, 2013), which absorbed the previous Syrian National Council (Lund, 2013: 12), was formed in November 2012, pushed among others by the U.S. and Qatar. It was initially headed by Ahmed Moadh al-Khatib. It was recognized by many Western nations (see list on Wikipedia), by Turkey, by the Arab States of the Gulf (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Oman), as the “legitimate representative of the Syrian people. The Arab League (except for Algeria, Iraq and Lebanon) recognised the Coalition as their “legitimate representative and main interlocutor”. This recognition was reasserted at the recent Arab League summit in Doha on 26 March 2013 (The Guardian).
Then, the united face of the Syrian moderate opposition – as well as its moderation – was questioned, notably by the election of Ghassam Hitto as Prime Minister of the interim opposition government, recommended by Mustafa Sabbagh, Secretary General of the Coalition, and supported by the Muslin Brotherhood and Qatar (see update 8 July 2013 below for the changing face of the “moderate opposition” with the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood following events in Egypt). As a result the president Al-Khatib resigned, confirming he was stepping down on 21 April 2013 (Al Arabyia and AFP), while some leaders in the opposition voiced their disapproval, including in the Free Syrian Army (FSA), refusing to recognize Hitto (e.g. AFP 24 March 2013). See update 8 July 2013 below for the changing face of the “moderate opposition” with the downfall of the Muslim Brotherhood following events in Egypt.
The SNC created the Supreme Joint Military Command Council (SJMCC or SMC) with Brigadier General Salim Idriss elected as Chief of Staff. The SMC is meant to integrate and lead the FSA and is organised according to five fronts (Eastern Front: Raqqa-Deir Ezzor and Al Hassakah – Northern Front: Aleppo and Idlib – Central Front: Homs-Rastan – Western Front: Hama-Latakia-Tartus – Southern Front: Damascus-Dar’a-Suwayda).
A detailed report by the Institute for the Study of War’s Syria Analyst Elizabeth O’Bagy on this endeavour may be found here, but must be read in the light of the debate between Debeuf and Lund on the FSA.
How many fighters belong to the SMC? This is a crucial question however a very difficult one. If we use David Ignatius estimates for the Washington Post, we read that “Idriss and his Free Syrian Army command about 50,000 more fighters, rebel sources say” (Ignatius, 3 April 2013). However, Lund (4 April 2013) in his comment on Ignatius’ article for Syria Comment questions this estimates, considering the complexity and fluidity of the situation on the ground. O’Bagy, in her detailed report on the FSA does not seem to include a global estimate. Lund in his article on the FSA (16 March 2013) underlines that “If all the factions which have declared in favor of Idriss were added up, they’d count at least 50,000 men, perhaps many more.” However, as he stresses, those groups include some that belong too to other nexus, such as Suqour el-Sham that is part of the Syria Liberation Front (SLF) also known as the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF). Thus, if we are looking at the number of fighters who are “moderate,” then one should substract from the 50.000 all those men who fight first for other groups, and thus are only very loosely affiliated with the SMC.
The NC and SMC are those who receive “Western” aid, which is, officially, non-lethal, although, as monitored through crowdsourcing and explained in Chivers and Schmitt article for the New York Times (24 March 2013), military aid “from the C.I.A.” (mainly a consultative role) “Arab governments and Turkey” has found its way into Syria since early 2012. Meanwhile military training, on a small scale, “led by the US, but involves[ing] British and French instructors” would be provided in Jordan (Borger and Hopkins, 8 March 2013, The Guardian). It is thus crucial for the NC and the SMC to present a united front to the world, to reassure regarding their capacity to act and harness various groups and to reassert their moderation, because it is only under those conditions that they will continue to receive support or even increase its amount and change its nature. The fear from potential backers is that aid and weapons provided spread throughout groups and not only fuel the Syrian conflict but also favour regional spill-over, while also potentially finding their way back into Western countries, favouring violence in an environment made more volatile by the crisis.
The meeting of the Friends of Syria group in Istanbul on 20 and 21 April 2013 exemplifies those interactions. There, US Secretary of State John Kerry announced that a new non-lethal package to the SMC of up to USD 130 million would be added to the 117 million already given (AP, 20 April 2013). France and Great Britain push for changing the EU arm embargo on Syria; Germany is more reserved but announced it would accept it (Spencer, 21 April 2013, The Telegraph, EUbusiness, 22 April 2013), while The Netherlands would be more reserved (AP, 20 April) and Scandinavian countries would oppose it (EUbusiness, 22 April). Both France and the UK have let believe that they could decide to move forward even without a European agreement (Traynor, 14 March 2013, The Guardian). The EU also decided to ease its oil embargo on Syria to support the NC (EUbusiness, 22 April).
The road to Geneva 2
The Egyptian revolution of 30 June 2013 with the ousting of President Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, the refusal by the Muslim Brotherhood to join the new coalition and its call to fight had immediate implications for the SNC in Syria. Indeed the SNC was meeting in Istanbul to elect a new President. After the usual discussions and delays, the Egyptian defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood most probably contributed, along other factors specific to Syria, to see the Saudi backed Ahmad Al Assi Jarba elected, over the Qatar backed Mustafa Sabbagh, knowing that Qatar is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. However, “the Brotherhood representative, Farouq Tayfour, was elected one of two vice-presidents of the Syrian National Coalition in a sign the group still retains influence in Syrian opposition politics.” (Erika Solomon, Khaled Yacoub Oweis, Reuters, 6 July 2013). Badr Jamous is General Secretary.
See also
Read next the update for 24 February 2014, the start of a new phase.
