Armed Conflict in Syria.. U.S. and International Response

 Zaman-Alwasl, exclusively, summarized for Its readers an important and detailed study on the Syrian conflict prepared by the Congressional Research Service last month. The newspaper will publish the study in series of articles.

''The popular-uprising-turned-armed-rebellion in Syria has entered its third year, and seems poised to continue, with the government and a bewildering array of militias locked in a bloody struggle of attrition.'' Jeremy M. Sharp and Christopher M. Blanchard; Specialists in Middle Eastern Affairs, said.

U.S. officials and many analysts believe that Assad and his supporters will ultimately be forced from power, but few offer specific, credible timetables for a resolution to the crisis.

Opposition forces are formidable, but forces loyal to President Bashar al Assad continue to resist, using air strikes, artillery, and pro-government militias in punishing counterattacks. U.S. officials believe that the capacity of government forces is eroding but also believe that fighting would likely continue even if opposition groups achieve their objective of toppling Assad.

Some members of the Sunni Arab majority and of ethnic and sectarian minority groups view the conflict in communal, zero-sum terms. Many observers worry that a further escalation in fighting or swift Regime change could jeopardize the security of chemical and conventional weapons stockpiles, threaten minority groups, or lead to wider civil or regional conflict.

Amid extensive damage to major urban areas and reports attributing war crimes to government and opposition forces, the fighting has created a regional humanitarian emergency. Some estimates suggest more than 70,000 Syrians have been killed since unrest began in March 2011.

As of April 22, more than 1,380,406 refugees had fled the country, more than 1.1 million of them since September 2012. According to the United Nations, as many as 3.6 million Syrians may be internally displaced. United Nations appeals for $1.5 billion for Syrians through June 2013 remain mostly underfunded, with U.N officials warning of a potential collapse of their ability to support the growing number of those displaced and in need. The United States has provided $409 million in humanitarian assistance to date.

President Obama and his Administration have been calling for Asad’s resignation since August 2011, and have pressed the United Nations Security Council to condemn the Syrian government.

The United States has recognized the National Coalition of Revolution and Opposition Forces (SOC) as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people and is providing nonlethal assistance to the Coalition and an affiliated Supreme Military Command Council (SMC). The Obama Administration believes that a negotiated political settlement is required and has prepared military plans to secure Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons, if necessary. Members of Congress and Obama Administration officials are weighing these issues as they continue to debate U.S. policy. Some observers advocate for more robust nonlethal and lethal aid to the SOC and SMC as a means of forcing the Assad regime to the negotiating table. Opponents of this approach argue that making opposition groups more formidable could intensify the fighting and risks empowering extremists. Meanwhile, Assad refuses to step down and warns his supporters that “victory is the only option.” Some armed opposition factions, including powerful Islamist coalitions, reject negotiation outright and prefer a military solution to the conflict.

After two years of unrest and violence, the central question for policy makers remains how best to bring the conflict in Syria to a close before the crisis consigns the region to one of several destructive and destabilizing scenarios. The human toll of the fighting, and the resulting political, ethnic, and sectarian polarization, all but guarantee that political, security, humanitarian, and economic challenges will outlast Assad and keep Syria on the U.S. agenda for years to come.

  

 The American assessment for The Syrian Conflict 

 
The escalating conflict in Syria poses increasingly complex and difficult policy questions for Congress and the Obama Administration. The popular-uprising-turned-armed-rebellion against the Assad regime has entered its third year, and seems poised to continue, with the government and a bewildering array of militias locked in a bloody struggle of attrition. Al Qaeda affiliates and other violent extremists, including foreign fighters, have assertively demonstrated their presence in Syria. Syria’s armed forces remain under tremendous strain, and reportedly continue to receive significant outside assistance from Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah. The Syrian government has resorted to indiscriminate attacks on rebel-held areas and has stated its willingness to use its unconventional weapons in the event of foreign military intervention. The Syrian opposition’s political divisions persist, even as the resilience and tactics of armed rebels make the limitations of the Syrian security forces more and more apparent. United Nations officials have cited estimates that as many as 3.6 million Syrians have been displaced inside the country. As of 22 April, there are an estimated 1.38 million Syrian refugees in neighboring countries.

These factors complicate ongoing debates over U.S. national interests in Syria and potential policy responses. To date, debate has largely focused on the humanitarian and regional balance of power implications of the uprising, and Members of Congress have weighed various policy proposals in the hope of catalyzing and facilitating a relatively orderly negotiated transition.
Looking ahead, the prospects for such a transition appear to be all but nonexistent, and the focus of debate is shifting toward identifying and mitigating the negative consequences of a series of less orderly contingencies. Issues of particular concern include the potential for prolonged sectarian or ethnic conflict, threats to Syria’s territorial integrity, potential insecurity of chemical weapons and conventional arms stockpiles, regional refugee flows, the future of violent extremist groups, and the future costs of establishing security and rebuilding the country

  Status of Ongoing Armed Conflict 

 As of April 2013, the armed conflict in Syria shows no signs of abating. Opposition forces have strengthened their capabilities and broadened their control over areas of northwestern, eastern, and southern Syria, but they have been unable to deal a decisive blow against the Alawite dominated security forces of President Bashar al-Assad. The broad grouping of forces opposing Assad’s regime includes a multitude of local militias; army defectors; and volunteers fighting in brigades that are organized under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and various armed Islamist coalitions. Some of these groups include foreign fighters. Various rebel forces have gradually seized territory in an arc along the Syria-Turkey border, along the Euphrates River, in the eastern suburbs of Damascus, and along the Syria-Jordan border.

Islamist groups; Free Syrian Army brigades; and local fighters in different cities, continue to operate relatively independently. Several leading opposition groups hold divergent and potentially contradictory goals for the country’s political future. Groups with divergent priorities now control different areas of the country. Islamist fighters, including the Al Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al Nusra (Support Front), captured the city of Al Raqqah (Raqqa) in March 2013. Kurdish forces control areas of northeastern Syria, and some Kurds have clashed with Arab Islamists.

Bombings and clashes occur daily near and inside the capital, Damascus, and the contest continues for control over military bases near Aleppo, Syria’s commercial hub and second-largest city. Intense fighting in the south is ongoing, while government forces apparently are consolidating in strongholds in the center of the capital and its western suburbs. Media reports and online videos indicate that rebel forces have taken over several military bases outside Aleppo, along with strategic towns and checkpoints along the main highway that links Aleppo to Damascus. These rebel gains have created a major obstacle for the government’s resupply of its forces in northern Syria. The government is widely presumed to prioritize maintaining control over its strongholds in Damascus and parts of Aleppo, along with the arc linking Damascus north and west along the Lebanese border to the Alawite-populated areas of the coast.

As death tolls have spiraled, both sides have adopted brutal tactics. In many areas, the regime has resorted to the use of air power, Scud missile strikes, and indiscriminate shelling of entire population centers, as part of a strategy to leave rebels with damaged physical infrastructure and a resentful population. A February 2013 report by a United Nations Human Rights Council Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria found that “grave human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity” continue to occur in Syria. The report attributes war crimes to both government and opposition forces.

These crimes have intensified as Syria’s civil war has taken on an increasingly sectarian dimension. In many areas, Alawite-led security forces and allied militia such as Jaysh al-Sha'abi (Popular Army) are engaged in combat with predominantly Sunni rebel militias. Some of these Sunni militias are becoming more radicalized and aligned with extremist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham (the Free Ones of the Levant) or the Nusra Front. The Obama Administration has designated as terrorist groups both the Popular Army and the Nusra Front pursuant to terrorism and Syria-related sanctions legislation and executive orders. In early April, the Al Qaeda affiliated Islamic State of Iraq announced its merger with the Nusra Front, but a Nusra leader reportedly rejected the claim and pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri. Over time, Syria’s conflict has become more complex. Sporadic clashes have broken out within the ranks of the armed opposition and allegedly within the tight-knit Alawite community.

Violence also has spilled over to varying degrees into neighboring states, such as Israel, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon. Many observers are concerned that the country is descending into anarchy. If current trends hold, fighting may gradually turn from a two-sided war into a contest involving multiple combatants from armed ethnic/sectarian communities, rebel militias, and remnants of the old regime. Cross-border violence is growing in parallel to Asad’s desperation.

In November 2012, Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations and Arab League Special Envoy to Syria, warned that “if this issue is not dealt with correctly, the danger is ‘Somalisation’ and not partition—the collapse of the state and the emergence of warlords, militias and fighting groups.”
President Assad routinely warns that state failure in Syria will destabilize the region. U.S. officials and some Members of Congress have expressed similar concerns about fragmentation and extremism, while also demanding Assad’s departure and increasing support to the opposition.

In sum, the short-to- medium-term security outlook for Syria and its neighbors is not positive.

The United States and other third parties face difficult choices with limited potential to shape the overall outcome.

  Prospects for a Negotiated Settlement 
 

During 2013, Syrian government and opposition leaders and their international backers have weighed negotiations for either a cease-fire or a political settlement. However, as of April, these efforts had yet to bear fruit, and conflicting statements from opposition leaders cast doubt on the opposition’s unity and continued openness to considering a negotiated settlement. In February 2013, then-leader of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (hereafter referred to as the Syrian Opposition Coalition or SOC) Mouaz al-Khatib made a surprise announcement that he was willing to conditionally enter into negotiations with the Assad government. Khatib’s resignation and replacement by Syrian National Council leader George Sabra signaled a potential change in approach. In February, Sabra said there would be “no formal and informal talks with the Syrian regime if Bashar al-Assad and his team is still in power. They have to leave power. Then we can start the dialogue, with the others which didn't give any orders to kill people, to damage the country.” Opposition Interim Prime Minister Ghassan Hitto stated in his inaugural speech that “there will be no dialogue with the Assad regime.” Defining a consensus list of regime officials to negotiate with continues to prove difficult for the fractious opposition.

Although Assad has rejected calls for his resignation since January, he also has called for a mutual cease-fire, which if adhered to could lead to a “national dialogue.” Negotiations, involving U.S., Russian, Arab League, and U.N. officials have explored the potential for national dialogue in line with the Geneva Accord of mid-2012, which called for dialogue as the basis for a transition to a new government. In the meantime, the Obama Administration continues to call for Asad’s resignation while providing humanitarian aid to international organizations supporting Syrian civilians and nonlethal support to unarmed and armed elements of the Syrian opposition.

Secretary of State John Kerry has indicated that the U.S. “goal is to see us have a negotiated outcome and minimize the violence.” In the interim, the Obama Administration has worked with Congress to increase the provision of support to the political opposition and shift toward the overt provision of nonlethal support to armed opposition elements.

The central question for policy makers remains how best to bring the conflict in Syria to a close before the crisis consigns the region to one of several destructive and destabilizing scenarios. The SOC recently demanded the imposition of a no-fly zone near Syria’s borders and called for targeted strikes on missile and chemical weapons sites. Some observers have advocated more robust nonlethal and lethal aid to the SOC and the opposition’s Supreme Military Command Council (SMC). Supporters of this approach argue that increasing aid to the opposition will force the Assad regime to the negotiating table. Opponents argue that making opposition groups more formidable could intensify the fighting. Some armed opposition factions, including powerful Islamist coalitions, reject negotiation outright and prefer a military solution to the conflict.

As noted above, the Obama Administration and U.N. officials continue to call for a political settlement. However, as of April, such a settlement remained elusive, and continued conflict appeared likely