 |
| Cynic says John Kerry is telling Moaz al-Khatib: "We'll supply the FSA with 1.5kg NIDO milk cans" |
Forget scenes of Syrians scattered in neighboring
countries and waiting for blankets and canned food.
Overlook images of internally displaced Syrians being
hunted down by shells hitting their breadlines or missiles and barrel bombs
burying them in basements or caves.
Disregard pictures of brutal practices by regime
forces and of some grim operations by nonnative fighters.
In his weekly think-piece today, the editor-in-chief
of pan-Arab al-Hayat Ghassan Charbel
says, “Forget all that and focus on a simple question: Who is winning in
Syria?”
Charbel answers his own question as follows:
Syria-watchers recognize the Syrian regime put up
fierce and exceptional resistance to rebel efforts to dislodge it either by peaceful
or military means.
Unsurprisingly, that’s unlike the other regimes that
were swept away by the so-called Arab Spring. The reason is that the Syrian
regime has been building a political party and a military and security machine
for the past 40 years. And unlike the regimes outwitted by the Arab Spring, [Alawite]
people fanatical about their faith back the Syrian regime.
It is equally argued that defections got nowhere near
the backbone of the regime’s military and security machine. But instead of the machine
maintaining a tight grip on every span of Syrian territory, it is now sitting
back in parts of it.
And the military and security machine’s capacity to
pulverize the areas outside its control in no way proves its aptitude to win
them back.
The Syrian army seriously ruined its credibility
after using its arsenal internally and exposing its unending reliance on
Iranian and Russian supply lines to continue fighting.
The army’s success in recapturing a township or a
bypass is far from being a serious accomplishment. And nothing points to the
Syrian army’s propensity to win the war and turn back the hands of time.
Examining the Baath Party status does not require due
diligence and analysis. The party that monopolized the leadership of the state and
society is dead.
It was buried when the regime announced its own
reform measures. And Syria’s Baath can’t even emulate its counterpart in Iraq,
which can at least claim to have been brought down by foreign intervention.
The opposition can say it made massive sacrifices and
noticeable advances on the ground, except that a decisive win remains beyond
its reach.
Also, the successes of Jabhat al-Nusra may yet prove
taxing. One of the army’s first tasks in a changed Syria – if there is one –
will be to write off the successes of al-Nusra and of the other roving
fighters.
Much is said about Russia recouping its clout and
imposing itself as the compulsory doorway to a solution. But despite Russia’s
role in and outside the UN Security Council, Iran remains the Number One player
in Syria. Moreover, it is impossible for any solution in Syria to uphold Moscow’s
status ante the outbreak of the
Syrian revolution.
Much is also written about Iran preventing the Syrian
regime’s fall and about the lack of a solution without Tehran’s approval. But
here again, Iran won’t possibly be comfortable in a post-solution Syria as it
is with the current regime. The implication is that Iran is now on a damage
limitation mission.
And since Iran’s backing of the Syrian regime
effectively stoked the fire of a Sunni-Shiite conflict in the region, you can safely
say Iran is not winning.
Despite the differences, the same can be said of
Hezbollah in Lebanon. The party can help prevent or delay the regime’s fall,
but only at a very high cost for Lebanon, which lately joined the Sunni-Shiite
fray in Syria. Part of the very high cost will also be borne by Hezbollah proper
in terms of its sect’s relations with Lebanon and Syria’s Sunni communities.
Ditto for Iraq in light of the [pro-Syrian regime] stance
taken by the Nouri al-Maliki government.
America too can’t claim to be winning in Syria.
The Syrian tragedy exposed the shortcomings of
America’s role under Barack Obama. It exposed Obama’s America as being tired, enfeebled
and hesitant, though justifiably shunning reckless policies.
You can say we are in the midst of a regional civil
war -- a protracted and destructive conflict. That’s why the talk about
limited, sketchy and uncertain gains.
Chances of negotiations are extremely low. Changing
the power balance would require a torrent of military aid and rivers of blood.
The sure thing is that the Syria we knew two years
ago is forever gone.
