The Forest - Seeing the Broader Danger in Syria

As so many are concentrating once again on individual trees, here's what the forest looks like.

President Trump wanted to fulfill a campaign pledge to withdraw US troops from "endless wars" and decided to remove the limited number of US troops in Syria. Ostensibly, these troops were there to aid in the defeat of Da'esh, which the President, against the analysis of most in the know, declared to have been defeated. However, while US SPEC OPS did help in that regard, those in northern Syria were primarily in place to prevent the Turkish government from using the chaos in Syria to attack the Kurds, whose brethren in Iraq are our allies. As I write this, such an offensive has seemingly begun and the American President is threatening severe sanctions on Turkey, if it progresses.

The immediate consequences of the US withdrawal in the north and subsequent Turkish attacks are the possibility of ISIS and Al Qaeda associated prisoners being freed and those movements reorganizing in Syria in the power vacuum created in the space among the warring parties, harm to America's Kurdish allies in the north with the possibility of large scale casualties among both soldiers and civilians, and harm to US credibility as an ally more broadly. 

The latter impact, that as an ally, is somewhat mitigated by the fact that it has been similarly problematic for the US to work so closely with the Kurds as an enemy of our NATO ally, the Turks, regardless of the problematic nature of Turkey's current government. The US has substantial military and economic connections with Turkey and the US actively standing against Turkey in favor of the Kurds obviously is and has been an issue for the Turks.

Another thing that is often lost on those looking at the situation in Syria is that it is a multi-lateral conflict, not a simple one. This isn't simply a conflict between the US, Turkey, and the Syrian Kurds. Just to list some of the other major players involved in some way, we have the Russians, the Syrian government, Iran and the IRGC, Hizballah, Da'esh, Al Qaeda affiliated groups, Muslim Brotherhood affiliates, Iraqi Kurds, who will aid their Syrian brethren, the Iraqi government which faces instability already, Israel, Jordan, which could face a worsening refugee situation, and the Saudi, Egyptian, and UAE anti-Muslim Brotherhood anti-Iran alliance. Each of these will interact with other parties in the conflict and if the situation deteriorates further will become more involved.

Those American troops in Syria's south at Al-Tanf were/are there to prevent Iran from controlling a land route that would enable the rapid build up of military strength across a wide swath of territory. That land route could destabilize Israel's northern border, allowing Iran to move large amounts of missiles and troops into threatening positions. Stability in Al Tanf also limits the flow of jihadi fighters toward the Israeli and Jordanian borders.

Should ISIS and Al Qaeda fighters escape from Syria, many will bring veteran military experience, IED expertise, and a commitment to become a martyr with them wherever they go. It would not be surprising to see increased terrorism in Syria, Iraq, the Sinai, and Europe, but also, with fighters returning home from a number of countries, new or worsened problems in other nations as well.

In relation to Israel and Turkey specifically, the two nations have seemingly had an agreement, that the Turks would not aid Hamas and harass Israel as long as Israel did not actively aid the Syrian Kurds against Turkey. The possibility of dramatically increased threats against Israel coming from a destabilized northern border and substantially increased threats from those enemies of Israel involved in the conflict will compel Israel to become more involved. That Israelis are overwhelmingly in support of the Kurds and are greatly angered by what they see happening in Syria, may lead the government to act in support of the Kurds. This will almost certainly not be with open action against the Turks, but may include action against their proxies and will likely include replacing the US in relation to training and potentially helping to arm Kurdish forces. 

Turkey may then renew hostile actions in relation to aiding Hamas, but the Israeli public is further along in support for taking more substantial action against Hamas. It is reasonable to conclude that if Hamas launches an offensive, Israel will respond more forcefully than it has in recent times. This would be especially true if the threat of a second front in the north becomes more of a concern. Without a US presence, the likelihood of flareups in Syria leading to the possibility of an Israeli-Hizballah or Israeli-Iran conflict increases substantially.

The SDF leadership has threatened to negotiate an agreement with Russia or the Assad government. Just take a moment to consider that not long ago, the United States was in a place to mediate between Turkey and the Kurds with both wanting to please the United States. Should the Kurds end up seeking protection from Russia, we will be looking at a situation in which the Kurds protected by Russia instead of the United States would be threatened by a Turkey with Russian air defense systems and seemingly now in the Russian sphere, instead of using NATO air defense systems and in the American sphere. Russia would have fully replaced the United States' role in Syria and in regard to Turkey.

As Turkey will almost certainly see the opportunity to create a buffer zone against the Syrian Kurds as more valuable in the long term than the damage that would be done by even extreme US sanctions in the short term, the US will have to impose the threatened sanctions and relations between the US and Turkey will severely deteriorate even after the US conceded to its "ally" the ability to act in Syria. Thus, the act of giving in to Turkey here may result in the certainty of a fully deteriorated relationship that was only threatened by US shielding against a Turkish invasion in Syria.

If all of this comes to pass, the likelihood of the United States needing to send troops overseas to defend US interests increases substantially and with the resulting conflicts requiring more US resources, both in terms of human assets and equipment, than the Syrian special operations have required. This may be true in Iraq alone.

In other words, the removal of a limited number of soldiers in northern Iraq could lead to a deterioration of the region that would result in the United States expending far more resources and in America and all of its allies being worse off. This all should have been determinant in foreign policy decision making. Because it was not, the dry tinder has already been lit.

The Forest - Syrian Chemical Weapons and US Response April, 2017

Some people are asking why we would strike Assad's forces in response to him attacking civilians whom the administration doesn't seem to want to accept as refugees. It is important to understand the bigger picture foreign policy implications.

Beyond any moral or ethical feelings connected to what happened, or to US refugee policy, are several responses based upon strategic concerns.

One answer is that the primary reason to respond to this sort of action by Assad is to slow the flow of refugees out of the country. The primary purpose of chemical weapons is to cause people to flee en masse. Assad's use of these weapons is precisely to cause the flight of large numbers of civilians, to make them seek refugee elsewhere. For every person killed in such an attack, a high multiple will flee in fear of the next one and the effect is exponential. A second use, third, and so on will create a massive flow of refugees. So stopping these attacks will also slow the flow of refugees out of the country.

Secondarily, as I have noted before, the easiest way for terrorists to acquire WMDs, in this case weaponized Sarin gas, is to have it drop into their midst and fail to detonate. Those munitions could be used to create a horrific death total in a confined space anywhere in the world. So there is a grave threat to our own security and to that of our allies that comes from Assad's use of such weapons against people who seek to do harm to us. We don't want such weapons literally falling into the hands of the Islamic State or Al Qaeda.

A third answer is that this was an excellent opportunity to take a relatively modest action that will establish some credibility to enforce diplomacy with the threat of military action. When dealing with those threatening the United States, its allies, and its interests, fear that the United States will carry out threats to use its military capability to respond is essential to the functioning of diplomacy. It is best that credibility be establish in a way that does not result in either mass casualties or the significant escalation of an already problematic conflict. More significant action may well be required to do this effectively, but this action could be seen as a start.

A fourth answer is that this puts significant pressure on Russia to reign in both Assad and Iran, while also putting pressure on China to address threats coming from North Korea as well as putting North Korea itself on notice that a US military response is now more likely than it once was.

Dramatic Change in the Middle East- Turkey, Russia, and Israel

Coup and Purge in Turkey - On July 15, segments of the Turkish military engaged in behavior some of which resembled those that one might see in a coup. Much of the behavior of the military also resembled those that one might see from a military exercise and many soldiers who were arrested for having taken part in the coup were under the impression that they were taking part in such an exercise.

There are many reasons to question whether or not this really was a "coup," though none individually is conclusive evidence that it was not a legitimate coup. Here is a non-exhaustive list of some of them:

• 1. In any coup, the leader of the nation must be killed, arrested, or at least forced into exile. That didn't happen. There was an opportunity for those engaged in the "coup" to shoot down President Erdogan's plane while the coup was in progress, but they did not.
• 2. Firing on the President's house makes some sense in a coup, attacking the symbol of the authority you seek to remove. Instead, coup participants fired on the People's house, parliament. That action can do nothing but anger the people as a whole and strengthen the President. Makes no sense.
• 3. For any coup to be successful, the army, the ground forces of the nation, must be under the control of the coup plotters. Soldiers, not tanks or planes, are necessary to control the population. If anything is a potential smoking gun, this is it. No sane coup plotter would even consider trying to take over a country without control over a substantial portion, if not overwhelming portion, of the Army. Tanks and planes can't enter buildings.
• 4. Failed coups generally result in the deaths of coup participants. Firing on hostile civilians, much less military forces would be normative. In a large nation like Turkey, one could have expected hundreds of dead and thousands of injured across the country at a minimum. Inexperienced soldiers being threatened by hostile civilians could have easily killed dozens just protecting themselves.
• 5. In any coup, control of messaging is essential and preventing the leader to be ousted from rallying support from the populace, even more so. This didn't happen effectively at all.
• 6. A coup requires effective timing and coordination in addition to an extreme level of trust. There is no chance at all that the leader of a coup attempt in Turkey could possibly deny involvement, because the leader of a coup would have to personally recruit and coordinate efforts. On the other hand, a military exercise or fake "coup" could easily involve authority figures manipulating lesser officials into action.
• 7. After a failed coup, leaders usually flee to another nation in order to save themselves.
• 8. You don't launch a coup having lost the last election 52-48. You wait for the next election.
• 9. Any "pro-democracy" coup in which the military doesn't expect to slaughter significant numbers of civilians in order to obtain and maintain control, necessarily requires support from a large percentage of civilian leaders.
• 10. The response to a failed coup is an investigation that begins with soldiers and might spread slowly beyond the military. Turkey's immediate and extensive purge of many thousands of Gulenist leaders, including judges at all levels of the judiciary, deans of schools, huge numbers of teachers and even soccer referees, is the best argument that this "coup" was orchestrated in order to enact the purge that has followed, rather than the purge being a response to a real coup.

The question is "What is the long term intent of the purge?" That we will address in the weeks ahead.
Meanwhile there have been other dramatic changes in Turkish policy in recent weeks, some even before the coup.

Turkey and Israel agreed on rapprochement. Israel sent Turkey a relatively small cash sum in exchange for a renewal of trade and full diplomatic relations. Those are the public terms, but behind the scenes developments seem to have been much more substantial judging by changes in behavior.

The day after it agreed to rapprochement with Israel (June 27), President Erdogan sent a letter to President Putin offering regrets for the November downing of a Russian aircraft and seeking to reestablish relations with Russia. In the intervening weeks, it appears that Turkey has practically abandoned Hamas, after being one of its primary advocates for years. That was almost certainly a concession in negotiations between Israel and Turkey, which brings up what Israel actually offered.

Israel likely offered to aid in reconciliation with Russia. That would explain the immediate and rapid development of that reconciliation in late June. Turkey not only needed help to avoid that relationship worsening, but it needed to seek a major concession from Russia, namely, as we found out today, the ability to launch a ground offensive within Syrian borders against Islamic State forces and Syrian Kurdish forces.

If you had said that Turkey would invade Syrian territory at any point before now, it would have seemed insane. The Assad regime is a Russian ally and having NATO forces operating on the soil of a close Russian ally would have been difficult to conceive. But not at this point because relations between Russia, Turkey, the US and the Kurds are now different. Israel and the US must have agreed to not support the Kurds in Syria against Turkey. Today, Vice President Biden announced that "Washington made clear to pro-Kurdish forces in Syria that they must not cross west of the Euphrates River" or lose US support. It is likely that Israel is also part of that agreement.

Meanwhile, Israel and Egypt have reached out to Vladimir Putin in response to an overture that Russia might help to moderate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Israeli relations with Russia are now substantially strong with Putin and Netanyahu pledging to continue "intensive" contacts. Russia not only gets Israeli intelligence help and cooperation in combating Islamist elements in Syria, Chechnya,  and in Russia proper, but also in regard to strengthening relations with Former Soviet Union FSU nations. Beginning with the Russian aliyah of the 1990s, Israel now has over one million citizens who were born in the Soviet Union, a high percentage of whom are from Russia as such, and extensive economic and social ties with Russia and other FSU nations.

To put this into perspective, there are about the same number of Russians in the Crimea, which Russia considers to be part of its territory, roughly 1.2 million, as there are today in Israel with about 900,000 Israeli Jews of Russian origin and 300,000 more Israelis of Russian origin who are not Jewish. Israel now even has a Russian born, Russian speaking, Defense Minister, Avigdor Lieberman. This all enables a level of economic, social, and security relationships between Israel and Russia that could not have existed in previous decades. Add in common concerns about political Islamist terrorism and instability in the Muslim world, especially in Syria, for both of which Israel is an essential strategic ally, and you have a Russia desirous of a stronger relationship with Israel than ever before. And this comes at a time when the United States has shown a desire to be much less present and directly influential in regional affairs.

Nothing like a situation in which Russia seeks a good resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the Israeli side because doing so furthers Russian interests. It is also the case that Russia is Israel's best friend in keeping Iran in check.

There is dramatic change happening. Few seem to be taking note. It is a new world out there.