Libya was
distinguished from some other Arab Spring protests by its armed rebellion, which rode on the support of NATO and Gulf countries to topple Muammar Gaddafi. This support included an all-out bombardment (no-fly zone), weapon supplies, equipment, training, intelligence, diplomatic recognition and funds. The rebels themselves were a mix of supposedly secular and unquestionably jihadi elements that came from within and outside the country. The conflict also gained some notoriety for the sectarian cauldron it had become, with indiscriminate massacres of religious and ethnic minorities. But the white knight foreign intervention of course had a larger humanitarian excuse: some 50,000 civilian deaths from the Libyan civil war, a tally later found to be fictitious when an actual body count by the victorious side discovered a total of 4,700 from all sides, soldiers included. Regardless, two years and a destroyed country later, the United States now has a confirmed ally in Libya for a paltry war expense of $ 896 million, a real bargain compared to the Iraq war, while promises of lenient oil investment terms and other exciting business opportunities await the other countries that partook in this feast.
The Syrian conflict is remarkably similar in all but a few yet important respects. In the first place this conflict has lasted a much longer time; the Baathist government of Bashar al-Assad has been acknowledged as a much more resilient opponent. Secondly, the government has enthusiastic and practical support from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. The third difference is that this is a much more regional conflict, with major implications for Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel, perhaps even most of the Arab world. No small wonder then, that many of the ‘Syrian’ rebels are actually militants from neighbouring countries, many of whom are answering the fanatical clerics’ call to the international Sunni Muslim to slaughter the Shia Muslim in Syria. The fourth difference: the no-fly zone has not been implemented just yet, and this brings us to the most exciting part of this article: the speculation.
The simple fact is that Syria cannot be Libya Part II until a NATO-led no-fly zone, the Holy Grail for the Syrian rebels, is put into effect. The real game-changer is precisely the ability of the NATO countries to implement the no-fly zone faster than the rebels can get pummelled into submission. The clock is ticking for the rebels. The Syrian army, emerging from a major strategic victory in Qusayr and high on morale, has already begun a major offensive to retake Aleppo completely. But the clock is now also ticking for Assad. Now that the rebels are close to losing the entire war, the suspiciously timely announcement from the United States that it has found that the evidence of the use of chemical weapons is convincing, whereas a mere few weeks ago it had not found it compelling enough, now brings tidings of a potential no-fly zone over Syria in about a month from now. Incidentally, one can ask why the ‘red line’ was not crossed when the Syrian death tally reached into the tens of thousands as was the case in Libya and why in this case it required the discovery of chemical weapons. Whatever the answer, the fact is that intervention in Syria now comes at a time when the western-backed rebels are on the verge of defeat, precisely as it was in the case of Libya when Gaddafi’s army was at the gates of Benghazi.
So why is it probable that there will be a no-fly zone? A simple increase in the number of weapons supplied to the rebels is both indecisive for winning the conflict and difficult. The supply of small arms and anti-tank weapons can only help improve the position of the rebels momentarily, possibly to use as leverage for the peace conference proposed for next month. But this cannot by itself win the conflict for the rebels, since Russia can also easily counter this approach with supplies of its own to balance it out. Since no side will accept a disadvantageous peace, there is a strong chance that the peace conference will either break down or never happen, bringing the conflict back to the battlefield. And on the battlefield, given their position at present, the rebels will simply not be able to win without the support of an immediate no-fly zone. As for logistics, the significance of the Syrian government’s capture of Qusayr was that this cut off a vital land supply route for the rebels through Lebanon. The other major land route for weapon supplies is Turkey, which is presently going through its own internal ferment, and as a result might possibly not be the most reliable route. This leaves aerial supply as one of the most flexible and effective solutions to that problem, but this can only be done with a no-fly zone over Syria to knock out the air force and anti-air capabilities of the country. Part of the urgency felt in implementing this no-fly zone is brought about by the Russian commitment to supply Syrian operatives with defensive technology such as the S-300 anti-aircraft missile. NATO wants to get in the door first with a no-fly zone before this rather effective deterrent is put in place.
Besides, there is also a game theory scenario of sorts playing out between Russia and the United States. If the United States does not win, it stands to lose the potential of shaping the events of the Middle East for decades to its desire and improving the position of Israel in the region. If Russia does not win, its international influence will wane further and show that it cannot meaningfully prevent the United States from harming its regional interests. Neither side wants the other to perceive a sign of weakness that can be exploited in the future. So both sides have decided to drive ahead with the hope that one will get out of the way.
The Syrian civil war is now a race against time. Critical events are unfolding every moment. It is without a doubt, history in the making.
The writer is a recent MBA graduate from the University of Texas. He can be reached at [email protected]