In a speech at Stanford recently, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson outlined “the way forward” for the United States in Syria. He announced that the US military would have an open-ended presence inside the country and envisioned a Syria free of the Islamic State group, al-Qaida, Iran, weapons of mass destruction and President Bashar Assad. He also laid out a “new” strategy to achieve all this: Buttressed by its military, the US will expend diplomatic energy on stabilization programs and the UN-led political process.
But nearly seven years after the Syrian uprising and civil war first erupted, the US has yet to play more than a marginal role in the Syria story. New rhetoric from the State Department won’t put us on a new track.
When he was in office, President Barack Obama limited military support for Syria’s Arab rebels, opted against targeting Assad’s forces, engaged militarily only with the militant Islamic State group and ultimately provided some support for Kurdish rebels. Under President Donald Trump, the level of US involvement has stayed more or less steady. Trump ended a CIA program supporting rebels, lobbed bombs at a Syrian air base in a one-off and has focused the fight on Islamic State group. He also bolstered Kurdish rebels fighting under the umbrella of the Syrian Democratic Forces, arming and leading them in their effort to drive the Islamic State group out of Raqqah. Russia did the same for Assad’s forces in Dair Alzour, and the Islamic State group has now been pushed out of Syria’s northeast.
Now the State Department and the Agency for International Development are undertaking a massive stabilization effort in the northeast, in cooperation with the US military. They are rebuilding infrastructure, extending services like water and electricity and creating local councils to undertake governance.
While this may seem like a significant commitment, the desert region is scarcely inhabited compared with the west and south, where 80 percent of the Syrian population lived before the conflict broke out. In its attempts to foster local leadership, the US is clumsily balancing between Arab inhabitants and the well-organized Kurds, who liberated the area from the Islamic State group.
In the process, the US is snubbing the Turkish government, which presides over a statelet in northern Aleppo and has recently launched a military incursion against the US’ Kurdish allies in the northwest. The US is also avoiding Assad’s government, which, assisted by Russia and Iran, has been recapturing territory across the country and is likely to take control of the northeast.
There is potential for the US to oversee a settlement between the Kurds and the central government, but Tillerson has not indicated if he will usher in any such process. So far, the US has been party to only one cease-fire, in Syria’s south.
Meanwhile, supposed “de-escalation zones” in central and northwestern Syria remain hot spots. In Idlib, the only Syrian governorate that Arab rebels control, the militant group and former al-Qaida affiliate Hayat Tahrir al Sham is taking over. Lately, Assad’s forces have made inroads in Idlib. Russia and Iran have some sway over Assad, while Turkey has influence on some of the rebels. But the US has no pull in that region or the other such zones.
There have been two different sets of negotiations on Syria. Russia, Turkey and Iran have presided over talks in Astana, Kazakhstan. Besides creating the de-escalation zones, the Astana talks may serve only to keep government and opposition delegates organized and prepared for other negotiations. The US is merely an observer at these talks.
Then there are the United Nations-led negotiations in Geneva. The US has participated in all eight rounds of the UN talks, but it hasn’t taken on a leadership role, and so far the talks haven’t yielded anything concrete.
The UN-led process aims to implement Resolution 2254, which calls for UN-supervised elections and constitutional reforms. But since 1945, only one quarter of more than 100 civil wars have ended in a negotiated settlement. Most of the time, one party militarily defeats the others.
Assad now has control over all of Syria’s major population centers, where reconstruction contracts are already being forged. He has refused to concede that he is fighting anything but a war on terrorism. And he retains more popular support in Syria than the West has been willing to acknowledge.
Tillerson may envision a Syria free of violence, one to which refugees and displaced people could return. But the US is doing little to make it so.
Rana B. Khoury Rana B. Khoury is a doctoral candidate in political science at Northwestern University. She wrote this for the Los Angeles Times. -- Ed.
