This century's most haunting and depressing tragedy in Syria is taking yet another darker turn: on top of nearly 500,000 deaths and refugees totaling over six million in a seven-year civil war, President Bashir Assad and the Russian military are moving against the last major rebel stronghold in Syria's northwest Idlib province.
- Idlib, hard by Turkey's border, has long been the center of Syrian rebel activity, and it's the home of over three million Syrian citizens; sadly, it also houses tens of thousands of jihadist fighters who have fled the ISIS "caliphate." These extremists provide Vladimir Putin and Assad all the justification they think they need to effectively level the city and major towns in the province.
- Syrian troops are massing for assault, Russian aircraft have begun bombing with no attempt to limit civilian casualties, and the Iranians remain decisively engaged. Both Assad and Putin have repeatedly demonstrated their callousness toward civilians as they go after terrorists as well as anti-government rebels - two groups without a distinction in the minds of the Russian and Syrian leaders.
There are several optimistic notes, however, even as this tragedy deepens:
- First, President Trump last week signaled Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis that U.S. forces will remain engaged in the east and south of Syria, both to protect U.S. interests and to contain the bloodbath.
- Further, Trump appointed the widely respected Jim Jeffrey as the "Special Representative for Syria Engagement." I've known Jeffrey for years - when he served as Ambassador to Turkey, and then to Iraq. Jeffrey enjoys bipartisan support; as important, he's an interlocutor that Turkish President Recep Erdogan listens to.
- Turkey is likely to be the Syrian neighbor most impacted by increased refugee flows from Idlib; using Jeffery as an intermediary with Erdogan, to try to limit Russian atrocities, can pay important dividends.
The U.S. warned last week, through a Trump Tweet and White House statements, about possible U.S. responses to a "bloodbath" in Idlib, and especially, to the use of chemical weapons.
- But will these U.S. statements make any difference? One of the many DC Beltway intelligence services drew a conclusion following the Tweets that comports with previous Syrian and Russian behavior - Syria in Aleppo, Russia in Chechnya: "Battlefield gains of a terrorizing chemical strike to speed the fall of Idlib are worth the expected but still limited U.S. response."
What makes this evolving situation especially worrisome is that Russian forces are increasingly intermingled with Syrian units. Any U.S. targeting of Assad's forces is hence far more difficult now than when Trump responded with cruise missiles last year in Syria.
- For that reason, only a chemical strike on Idlib would likely trigger a U.S. (and French) response; but Assad and the Russians will do all they can to mask such use. One senses that the White House is resigned to the assault on Idlib, and to the humanitarian nightmare that ensues.
- Chances of the U.S. military confronting Russia - or Iran - directly and creating a geopolitical crisis affecting markets are minimal. What is not minimal, tragically, is the human suffering; Syria has now taken its place alongside Rwanda, the Balkans, and Yemen as examples of mankind's increasing indifference to humanitarian crises, and of the political unwillingness to resolve them.
