While the Middle East sits on pins and needles waiting to see what will become of Egypt after the fall of President Mohammed Morsi earlier this month, the Syrian civil war rages on with no end in sight.
The 2 ½-year civil war, which has resulted in the deaths of 100,000 and forced over 1.5 million Syrians to take refuge in other countries, has taken a turn for the worse. Civilians living in rebel-controlled towns now report dire food shortages due to blockades, according to the latest reports by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.
Meanwhile, the proliferation of foreign terrorists among rebel elements is making matters worse. What was once a somewhat homogenous front, united by a common goal to oust Syrian President Bashar Assad, has now splintered into rival factions marked by infighting and killings across disparate opposition groups.
For some policy experts, the now-fractured opposition marked by divides in secular nationalist and radical Salafist groups could limit the effectiveness of any foreign intervention.
“The time for action was a long time ago. Now that we are closing in on 100,000 dead there are too many conflicted parties for us to get involved and to have any degree of confidence that will tip the tide to victory. The more we talk about this, the less favorable our options are,” said Ed Turzanski, a John Templeton fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, to Mint Press News.
Innocent victims of rebels
As Ramadan begins, the holy month of fasting for Muslims, civilian areas in Aleppo report dire food shortages due to rebel blockades.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports this week that protesters are calling on the rebels to lift a blockade on areas around Aleppo.
Starving civilians who called for the siege to be lifted came out in force Tuesday, demanding an end to the rebel blockade.
One demonstrator was shot dead during the protest, and people who have tried to leave Aleppo to buy desperately needed food have been blocked by anti-Assad rebels.
“I came to buy food. We have nothing, our children are dying of hunger. My son is sick and needs medicine and to eat,” one desperate woman said in a video posted by the Syrian Observatory.
Many of these rebels are actually foreign fighters who have poured into Syria since fighting began. Many residents, even those who still favor overthrowing Assad, have expressed their disdain for radical foreign Salafist fighters.
“A year ago the jihadis were still operating almost underground in Syria. Now they are powerful and important players, in some places running whole towns, where they impose Sharia law,” said Paul Wood, a BBC correspondent in a recent report.
“This is a disaster for us, a disaster for the revolution,” a female opposition activist told Wood. She was complaining about Islamist gunmen telling her not to smoke, to cover her head, and to leave meetings where she was the only woman.
The unnamed woman is a member of the Free Syrian Army, a coalition of secular nationalist opposition fighters. Many of its roughly 80,000 fighters were defectors from the Syrian Army and now have to battle radicals who have entered the fray in an attempt to create a Sunni Islamist state.
Qatar and Saudi Arabia have thrown their lot behind the rebels in what is seen as an attempt to weaken the influence of Iran and Hezbollah, a Shiite group that has received funding from Iran. Both are considered regional foes of Arab Gulf states.
The fighting reached a crescendo this week with the killing of a senior commander of the Free Syrian Army who was reportedly assassinated by foreign terrorists.
The extreme factions in Syria
Assad has been bolstered 1,000 Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon as well as material support from Russia. Unconfirmed reports indicate that Iran has sent 4,000 fighters to aid the embattled president.
All of the help appears to be working in Assad’s favor as the Syrian army has been able to regain lost ground in recent weeks, retaking the strategic city of Qusayr bordering Lebanon. Rebel fighters suffered heavy losses during the two-week offensive — 500 fatalities and 1,000 injuries, according to Russia Today.
As the momentum swings back in Assad’s favor, infighting among disparate opposition groups could further bolster his chances for survival. A recent BBC report claims that that there is now a “civil war within a civil war” in the fight among disparate opposition groups vying for control over Syria.
The confusing deluge of Syrian opposition can be divided, generally, into two camps — the Free Syrian Army and the Salafist, terrorist elements.
Since the onset of fighting in 2011, foreign fighters have trickled into Syria from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya and even some European countries. One recent report found that among 3,000 foreign fighters have been killed in Syria since the outbreak of violence.
Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television station reports that among those killed are 35 Americans, 729 Saudis, 479 Egyptians, 439 Lebanese, 439 Chechnyans, 301 Afghans, 263 Libyans, 261 Pakistanis, 208 Iraqis and 188 Russians.
The Obama administration contends that it has made its best assurances to send weapons only to moderate rebel groups. The Associated Press reported in March that Secretary of State John Kerry said that President Barack Obama is confident that the vast majority of weapons being supplied to Syrian rebels by U.S. allies are going to moderates and not finding their way to extremists.
“We did discuss the question of the ability to try to guarantee that it is going to the right people and the moderate Syrian Opposition Coalition and I think it’s really in the last months that that has developed as a capacity that we have greater confidence in,” Kerry said in Qatar.
Other policymakers and commentators are unconvinced.
“Nobody even knows how to define the rebels,” said former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) to Mint Press News.
U.S. arms have not yet reached rebels after the proposal faced bipartisan opposition in Congress earlier this month. Reuters reports that both the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees have expressed reservations about Obama’s plan to support the opposition by sending them military equipment, including light arms.
Even assuming that the weapons are given to moderate groups, foreign policy experts contend that the window of opportunity to effectively change the tide in Syria has long since passed.
“I think it’s too late. At this point it will be very difficult to make certain that any assistance we send into Syria doesn’t end up in the hands of groups like the ones that murdered Ambassador Stevens in Libya,” Turzanski said.
Is there an end game?
The specter of an all-out U.S. ground invasion is opposed by most Americans, but it has been suggested by some Republicans in Congress who have cited unconfirmed reports of chemical weapons use to support further U.S. action.
“Absolutely, you’ve got to get on the ground. There is no substitute for securing these weapons,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) in March. “I don’t care what it takes. We need partners in the region. But I’m here to say, if the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem.”
A ground invasion would be a hard sell to a U.S. public fed up with more than a decade of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy published a report last year predicting that the U.S. would have to commit 200,000-300,000 troops and at least $300 billion for an effective ground invasion that accomplishes the goal of overthrowing Assad’s Baathist regime.
A clear majority of Americans oppose this option, according to the most recent Quinnipiac University national poll. It found that 61 percent of American voters think that it is not in the national interest to be involved in Syria.
Additionally, 59 percent oppose providing arms and military supplies to anti-government groups.
“The public is fed up with foreign interventions. We don’t want to keep paying for this,” Turzanski said.
Leading opponents claim that the U.S. is simply ill-equipped and unjustified in pursuing an intervention in Syria.
“From my personal viewpoint I think in the moral sense we have no right or obligation to do it,” Paul said. “As far as policy goes, I think it’s very bad policy for the U.S. because of the unintended consequences and the chance of having blowback come from this. I also strongly object to it for constitutional reasons because when you get involved and you participate with bombs and drones and interference they’re acts of war and we’re not supposed to do that unless Congress gives permission.”