By Amir Taheri*, writing today for the Saudi daily Asharq Alawsat
Offering a curtain
raiser to planned talks on Syria, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has
offered an analysis that is sure to doom the enterprise from the start.
“The outcome of this
[the Syrian civil war] will not be determined on the battlefield, but at the
negotiating table,” he said.
While such a platitude
might be useful for table talk, adopting it as the basis for policy-making is
scandalous. Had Kerry been familiar with history, he would have known that the
outcomes of all wars are determined on the battlefield.
Wars happen when a
status quo that assures a balance of contradictory powers within a polity
ceases to function. When that happens, the status quo becomes intolerable for
one or more of the elements coexisting within it. Then one or more of those
elements try to break the status quo by force, triggering conflict with other
elements that continue to see their interests reflected in the existing order.
Politics in general,
and diplomacy in particular, could be effective in preventing the breakdown of
the status quo. Once the breakdown has happened, politics and diplomacy become
weapons of war.
Put another way, war
could be described as the continuation of politics by other means. Politics and
diplomacy are also useful tools in organizing the aftermath of a war by helping
the loser accept defeat and encouraging the winner to temper his triumph.
However, while a war is
going on the only thing that matters is seeking victory on the battleground.
The party that entertains the illusion of winning through negotiations is
certain to emerge as loser.
As far as the
protagonists are concerned, politics and diplomacy could be used to mobilize
domestic support, find external allies and split the adversary’s camp. Outside
powers interested in the outcome of a war could also use politics and diplomacy
to garner support for the side they favor. The most important political
decision to make is to choose the side one wishes to support. The power that
chooses not to take sides becomes an objective ally of the party that happens to
be on the ascendancy on the battlefield at any given time.
At the start of the
Syrian conflict, President Barack Obama seemed to have understood these facts.
When he stated
unequivocally that President Bashar Al-Assad “must go,” he appeared to have
chosen a side.
Three years later,
Kerry, reflecting the changed position of his boss, cancelled that choice. He
now pretends that the U.S. is pinning its hopes on a “political solution.”
One need not go back to
the earliest records of human warfare at the dawn of history to realize that no
war ever ended without victory for one side and, more importantly, admission of
defeat by another.
Even wars that could
last centuries, such as the duel between the Roman and Persian Empires or the
Hundred Years’ War between England and France did not end until one side
admitted defeat.
In the First World War,
attempts at fixing the outcome through diplomacy started soon after the first
shots were fired.
However, the outcome
was only determined when Germany admitted defeat. Even in the Second World War,
diplomatic efforts were not late in coming. The Nazis dispatched Rudolf Hess,
Hitler’s second in command, on a secret mission to England to negotiate a deal.
It didn’t work.
From 1942 until 1944,
the Allies, Britain, Russia and the United States, conducted secret talks in
Stockholm with Hitler’s emissaries in pursuit of a “diplomatic solution.” The
outcome, however, was decided on the fuming ruins of the battlefield in Berlin.
What applies to wars
between nations is also true in the case of civil wars.
The earliest examples,
such as the Roman civil wars that pitted Marius against Sulla or Caesar against
Pompeii, and the Iranian civil war between Khosrau II and Bahrām Chobin,
reconfirm the pattern.
There is no standard
duration for civil wars; they could last a few weeks or decades.
The English Civil War
lasted almost a decade. The American Civil War lasted four years, while the one
in Mexico took almost 10 years. The Russian civil war after the Bolshevik
seizure of power took three years, as did the Spanish one that ended with
Phalangist victory. The Malayan civil war of the 1950s took 11 years, while the
Nigerian civil war of the 1960s ended after just four years.
The Lebanese civil war
took more than 15 years. The Congolese civil war lasted 20 years and, in a
sense, still continues until this day.
In civil wars, external
powers end up taking one side or another. Powers that do not take a side end up
on the loser’s side.
The position the U.S.
chooses is of special importance for two reasons.
The first is that, like
it or not, the U.S. is the only outside power that could help shorten a civil
war by taking sides. The second reason is that unless the U.S. takes the lead,
other countries capable of making a difference by supporting the anti-Assad
rebellion will do nothing beyond diplomatic gesticulation.
By refusing to take
sides, the Obama Administration gives the powers that support Assad, notably
Russia and the Islamic Republic in Tehran, an advantage by reducing the costs
of their policy of repression in Syria.
The Obama–Kerry
decision to accept defeat without even attempting to make a stand could enter
political history as a model of what one might term: preemptive surrender.
The good news is that
the Syrian people are made of stronger stuff than Obama and Kerry.
* The author was executive editor-in-chief of Iran’s daily Kayhan from 1972 to 1979. He has worked or written for
innumerable publications and published 11 books. In 2012, the British Society
of Editors and the Foreign Press Association in the annual British Media Awards
named Taheri International Journalist of the Year.
