My research began with three words, “post-Assad Syria”, thinking this must be a hot topic in the world and all wars end sooner than later right? Those three words led to endless topics and questions, making it difficult to determine what “post-Assad Syria” meant, or if it was something that existed or would ever exist. From what I was reading, it seemed obvious that narrowing down was necessary to this as-of-now improbable topic. So who are the people that are being forgotten, or have the most to lose by any outcome of this dreadful civil war? The minorities. I focused on three minorities throughout my research – Syrian Christians, Syrian Kurds, and the Syrian Druze. One of the first articles I read for my research to begin with, “What caused Syria’s Civil War?”, was written by a Syrian Christian, pointing out the fact that this Syrian war started as a people wanted a better, more humane government. However, more definitive groups began forming, and it soon became a war heavily concerned with sectarianism. This was the article that sparked my questioning with minority groups, and how this civil war became so complex. Many rebel groups began focused on the idea of a truly Islamic Syria, turning them into extremist Islamist groups (Nusra Front, Islamic State). These groups of course then started any individual that stood against or did not follow their ideology. Christians became a primary target for many of these groups. Assad then saw an opportunity – making Christians an ally by offering them safety and protection against these groups.

So to begin, I wanted to see what experts saw as outcomes from this war if Assad were to leave/die. The first article focused on “The Day After” plan, a plan created by western and other world powers concerning the justice and equality for all Syrians should something occur to put Assad out of his rule. With the second article, the author had a somewhat radicalism view at proposed three possible outcomes: the creation of an Alawait statelet, somehow Syria forming a strong central government, or Iran taking advantage of the broken nation and use this to either expand its territory or create/reaffirm allies. However, as I kept researching, it seemed that the likelihood of Assad leaving is slim to none currently. So instead, I thought if I understood how the war began, perhaps that would give me some direction. From the articles I read, it was clear that it began with the Syrian people being done with the cruelty and corruption of the Assad regime – the uprisings from the other Arab nations giving them the confidence to begin protests. But one thing that kept showing up was the growing observance and concern that the war has slowly turned from a political and social reforms, to a an extremely secularist war. Islamist groups in particular saw this as an opportunity to plea for, or create, and purely Islamic state and culture. This is when the golden question came to mind: How is this change in priority effecting the minorities and neutral parties?

To start, I wanted to look into these Islamic rebel groups – which there are an unbelievable amount – and see their direct effects on Syria and the civil war. One group I focused on – and one of the largest – was the Nusra Front. One article focused on the fact that, with the rise of Islamic State at first, its extreme, violent ways and the fact that many foreign Nusra members left to join IS, lead the Nusra that have an increasing popularity with the people. The second article, contrastingly, showed that the growing number of Nusra members plus the public becoming more aware of their violent acts – though not publicized the way that IS is – its popularity was actually decreasing quite a bit. So how should the world take these other Islamic groups? Does the fact that they are not as radical or broadcasting of their violence make them less of a threat and less of a problem than Islamic State? Could we use them to our advantage? With the understanding that no matter what the group, Islamic driven rebel groups only have the goal of an Islamic nation in mind, and will do what it must to make sure that happens.

Now it was time to see the point of view of minorities being dragged into these conflicts. To begin, I looked at the Kurdish Syrians. This particular ethnic group had – so far – been successful in remaining neutral in the civil war. Instead of choosing sides, one Kurdish city in the North – soon followed by neighbors – decided to create their own self-governance. With this, they are now able to live fully Kurdish lives – a lifestyle suppressed by the Assad regime. This I think is an excellent example from the “no” argument from the chapter “Culture and Diversity” from Controversies of Globalization. With this argument ­­­­­­­____ states that international intervention is not needed, because cultures need to go through their own course in history – similar to the survival of the fittest. For so long, these Kurds were suppressed and hiding their beloved culture, which was thought to never change. But now, a fantastic opportunity has been presented for these people to revive their culture, traditions, religions, and language. If a group of people values their culture enough, they will not allow it to slip away and die off. Most recently, one of the obstacles the Kurds have been dealing with is fighting off the Islamic extremists from the northern border, and from Turkey and Iran – seeing as that the Kurds a primarily along the northeastern borders. This has brought about a deeper involvement into the war. One question that came to mind concerning this is, could other minority groups unite with the Kurds to help push out these Islamic extremist groups? If so, that would ride the civil war of one of the many complexities and issues that have fueled it thus far.

After being enlightened of the Kurds, I then wanted to look at the Syrian Christians and the Druze. It did not take long for me to discover that the Syrian Christians were a perfect example of a people trapped in the middle of a conflict, unable to truly speak/act for themselves. The Christians in Syria have unfortunately been the focal target for the Islamic extremist groups. These groups have kidnapped and executed hundreds of Christians all over the nation. Some on the other hand have offered, dhimmi – paying a fine and not practicing any Christian rituals publically or spreading Christian beliefs – or give the option to convert to Islam. This massive offense against Christians begs the question as to whether or not it is time, or appropriate, for foreign military intervention. A political realist would say that intervening would put ones own economy and society in jeopardy, therefore, do not intervene so that international markets and alliances are not threatened. A radical would contradict by saying that humanitarianism is the world’s number one priority. This population of people are being targeted and eliminated and must be saved. They would also continue by saying that the Assad regime – their own government – is using them the Christians as pawns; Promising them asylum so long as they support the regime. This gives the Christians the option of supporting the corrupt regime, or facing likely assaults and/or death with the extremist groups. It is time for humanitarian intervention for the sake of these minorities.

Another issue with the Christians is what will happen to them once the war is over. the article, “ The Choices for Syria’s Christians”, gives two options. If the regime continues to stay in power, Christians could join fellow Christians – say from Iraq – and flee to Israel. One could only imagine the effects this will bring on Israel with this flood of refugees now in their country. If the regime falls, Christians will still most likely need to flee the country due to that fact that some form of Islamic group will have taken over. Another option would be to join Alawaite-ruled communities and live in peace there – most likely out in the countryside hidden.

The Druze have been neutral in the civil war as of yet, but they have recently asked for weaponry from the Assad regime – as protection against rebels – or are threatening to seek aid elsewhere. By finally taking up arms and presenting Assad with this ultimatum, is it nearing the time for Druze to take sides? This has also come up with the Kurds as well. If these two groups decide to take sides on the war, this could have astounding effects on the war in days to come. If the Syrian Kurds take a side, other Kurds in the Arab world could decide to back their brothers and support whichever effort they choose. The Druze are also an influential minority, so by them taking sides, they could influence other minorities in the region to take sides as well. Either way, this could lead to either the nearing end of a war, or one that will only become more violent.

I would like to think that – because I am usually a fairly optimistic person – that some intervention will occur and Christians will be given better, thriving options. Nonetheless, the future for Syrian Christians as well as the rest of the nation does not look very bright. There is no sign of Assad stepping down willingly, or him lessening on his ruthless and violent tactics that got him in this situation in the first place. Overall, this research project has answered many questions, but as presented many to me as well. It will be very interesting to see how this war plays on. What is more, which countries will decide to intervene or will many remain neutral and let it fade out? Furthermore, I think eventually these minority groups will begin to take sides, or make one of their own, which, I think, will detour this war to one with significantly better outcomes.

Another often overlooked minority are the Druze. This may be due to the fact that they have remained neutral through the course of teh syrain civil war. Syria’s Druze between the hammer of the regime and anvil of extremism shows how the Druze are beginning to feel the tensions from both sides. The Druze Dilemma on the other hand explores how the Druze may be leaving their neutral position to one of more action. They have now demanded weapons from Assad or threaten to seek help and supplies elsewhere. Though the weapons are simply for defense against extremists, could this be the beginning of a new Druze position in the war? With this, would their change in position be compromising their ideology and culture?

As mentioned in previous blogs, the Syrian civil war as turned from one of governmental revolution, to one of secularism. One group under particular heat are Syrian Christians. What is worse is that they are torn between sides, not knowing whether to protect their lives, religion, or both. The Plight of Syria’s Vulnerable Christian Minority illuminates the atrocities committed against Syrian Christians throughout the civil war. The Choices for Syria’s Christians then explores possible scenarios for Syrian Christians as the war continues, and with what outcome. Christians have experienced, kidnapping, beheading, crucifixion, and have been used as tools for groups against one another. This is not only committed by Islamist extremists wanting to “cleanse” Syria, but also by groups such as the FSA, simply because many Christians side with Assad – mostly out of fear of extremist groups. Therefore, if rebel groups focused on Assad rather than religious cleansing, would this civil war have been less violent and shorter? Or possibly shorter but with increased violence? This is also when the impact and consideration of  international aid (as discussed in Controversies in Globalization) should be considered in helping this particular group. Syrian Christians are choosing Assad out of fear, convert to islam or agree to dhimmi, or face death. Shouldn’t this be enough reason for foreign intervention? The second article simply states that if the war continues, the safest bet is to join Iraqi Christians whom have also abandoned their homes or flee to Israel. If the governemnt falls however, Christians will most likely flee the country, or join smaller Alawaite-ruled entities. Either way, the future in Syria for Christians does not seem promising

The Ba’ath Party has been the ruling party in Syria for over forty continuous years. The article The Syrian Constitution: Assad’s Magic Wand, shows how the Ba’ath created constitution makes it impossible for any other party or candidate to come to power in an constitutional way. Uncovering Syria (II): We are All Baathists shows the extent of the Ba’ath Party in Syrian life and how it has played a role in what Syria has become. Both articles are very important in understanding politically the state of Syria and why it has been so difficult to implement changes in the government. With the first article, we see that there are specific amendments that keep the party in control of military, allowed for Bashar to become president at a younger age, and somehow both allow and prevent outside candidates running for presidency. All of this as created a limitless position for Assad; there as basically no constitutional way to remove him from office unless he or the Ba’ath Party agree to appoint a new leader. The second article focuses more on the Ba’ath Party itself. Since its implementation into Syrian government, its ideology and public views have shifted drastically. It began as a pure, respectable party with the central goal of a pan-Arab State – complete with the motto “Unity, Freedom, Socialism”.  This all changed in 1970 when the party opened itself to all Syrians, and became the “Party of power” under the rule of Hafez al-Assad. At this point, known as the Corrective Movement, the once peaceful, pure party turned into the loathed and corrupt group it is today. Furthermore, it is so intertwined in Syrian way of life, children begin learning the ways of the Ba’ath once beginning school. Both authors exemplify radical voices, concerned with the strong hold of the central government, and total lack of concern of the individual Syrian

The two articles I will be using are “The Kurdish Factor” and “Civil War Within Syria’s Civil War”. The first article explores the idea of Kurdish involvement in the war, and how their position could alter the course of the war. The second article examines how recent Kurdish self-governance has affected tensions and violence in Northern Syrian borders – specifically with Turkey. “Civil War Within Syria’s Civil War” discusses some of the same issues as in the CG chapter concerning conserving culture in a globalizing world. These people are now in a position where they are able to live fully Kurdish lives with aspects that were suppressed heavily by the Assad regime and of course, fading with time. But what does this mean long-term? Will the Kurds form an entirely new society and nation? Or will they simply be able to live completely Kurdish lives within Syrian borders? “The Kurdish Factor” then shows that, even though not a large representative of Syrian population, their involvement and who the Kurdish decide to ally with could drastically change the course of the war. If they turn against the regime, the regime could begin to lose a lot of support and credibility with minorities.

Although much of media attention is given to Islamic State, there is another continually growing force known as Jabhat al-Nusra or the Nusra Front. In one article I read, “In Syrian Civil war, emergance of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria boosts rival Jabhat al-Nusra”, the author brings to light the increase in power and somewhat popularity of Nusra late in 2013. He illustrates that with the rise of ISIS, the extremist members and majority of foreign members of Nusra have left to join this new growing group, making Nusra appear to be more moderate, and therefore more tolerated by the public. He also explains that Nusra can now be a way for Syrians to fight against ISIS, although many are still weary about working with this group. However in an article written not a week ago, “Nusra Front Quietly Rises in Syria as Islamic State Targeted”, shows that the expansion and strengthening of Nusra has caused popularity to decrease with Syrians as the groups brutality has become more known. With IS purposefully publicizing its violent actions, many were more willing to support Nusra; however it is becoming more apparent that the group may not be any different morally. Both of these articles show how different extremist groups in this civil war have boosted and/or discredited one another. I also chose these articles because they showed another side of the Islamic fight in the revolution – that IS is not the only group who wishes for an all Islamic Syria.

Through this investigation so far, I am continually bombarded and confused by all the complexities of the Syrian civil war and what exactly “post-assad Syria” means. The causes and effects of this civil war have no short-term solution in sight. So even considering a post-Assad Syria seems irrational and unpractical at this point. Even more so, it is looking like Assad has no intentions to leave anytime soon. Al-Assad will only leave on his own terms if ever. Now of course there is the question of why doesn’t someone “take him out” or force him out. It has become apparent that al-Assad has no hesitation in reacting – in a violent way – to any threat to him or his regime. Even if by some miracle Assad does decide to leave, there are now so many groups or possible parties, creating in itself an entirely new conflict and cause of war. So it seems that now a main concern should be, if al-Assad does leave, who could be best suited to take over? Would there even be a “Syria” as it was before?

Another complexity to the matter are groups such as the Islamic State, Qatar, Iraq and other surrouding conflicts in the middle east. This civil war came from unease and disapproval of the government, and has turned into conflict of secularism, crimes against humanity, terrorism, and possible depletion of a nation. Syria has been home to numerous religious groups throughout its history, which has never been an extreme problem in the state. Now however, tensions have grown and exploded. Is this now the driving force of the revolution to focus on? There are so many sides to this and ( in my opinion) no foreseeable solution or peace in the near future. Hopefully over the next few blogs I will focus on all of these issues and come to some sort of concluding concept of this civil war.

 

Two articles that I have chosen this week are “What caused Syria’s Civil War?” – by Syrian Reverend Nadim Nassar – and “9 Questions about Syria You Were Too Embarrassed to Ask” by Max Fisher. Both of this articles give different perspectives on what started and what has fueled the Syrian conflict. I think it is important to understand this part of the story in order to comprehend how it may end. Nassar points out that the civil war begin with people wanting freedom from the Assad regime and democracy; however as the conflict grew it turned into a sectarianism fight for some groups, which has been overly covered by the world and has overshadowed what Syrians were truly after when protests began early in 2011. In Fisher’s article, he brings up two interesting theories on how the conflict began. For one he calls the ‘sectarian re-balancing’, meaning that this conflict was the inevitable outcome of diverse religious and ethnic groups forced together – by the invisible borders created by European nations – and that this conflict is a way to re-balance the powers between them. Another theory he mentions is that the Assad regime mentality and ideals are far too outdated for the modern age we live in. So it was only a matter of time until it could no longer hold its own. As both articles mention, it is difficult to ignore the fact that sectarianism as an issue has developed as the crisis has continued. This development of sectarianism is also seen when looking at the revolution development in Egypt. It began with citizen demanding removal of Mubarak to gain freedom and basic rights/needs from the suppression of the regime. However, as the revolution continued, tension and demands from groups as the Muslim Brotherhood increased. It was not long before the Brotherhood ended up taking office and Presidency in Egypt which turned the revolution into something entire new from what it started as. It is difficult to say which perspectives of globalization are being represented by these two authors, as neither particularly focus on foreign relations and the cause of Syrian Crisis. Yes Fisher does metion a theory that European intervention forcing religous and ethnic groups together could have caused the sectarian issues of the crisis. However, this is not a theory that Fisher is siding with.

In the article “Human Rights: Activists Discuss Post-Assad Syria”, several scholars discuss “The Day After” plan concerning the state of post-assad Syria. One scholar Steve Haydemann – of the USIP – states that the plan focuses on developments that assist “already autonomous regions”. Professor Afra Jalabi then talks about the importance of equality and justice for Syrians, specifically under rule of law. In another article “Syria After Assad: Heading Towards a Hard Fall?” writer Michael Eisenstadt, takes a more radical view on post-assad Syria. For example, he suggests the idea of an Alawite statelet; the unlikelihood of one resultant state with a strong central government; and Iran taking advantage of this broken state to strengthen its involvement and alliances. Concerning the first article discussed, it is important to realize the extent to which this civil war is effecting the rest of the world. Yes this “The Day After” plan definitely involves Syrian diplomats, scholars and the like, but the involvement of countries such as the US, and Germany has been crucial in its development and success thus far. Another thing this article brings to light is the human rights aspect of post-assad Syria. Yes it may be obvious to outsiders that human rights should be one of the focuses in considering the future Syria, but when it comes to foreign policy and government development, justice is not always top priority. The second article discussed was chosen precisely because it gave a completely different persepective on the future of Syria – a prediction that could be seen as logical or extreme.  Nonetheless this author arguably has a quite radical view on the future of Syria and how outside interaction was negatively impact the nation. However, towards teh end of the article Eisenstadt suggests that Washington should continue humanitarian acts by helping Syrian refugees across the Middle East and that the US is one of Syria’s only helpful allies in the end. This gives an interesting dilemma in foreign players with Syria.

I will honestly say I chose this topic with very minimal knowledge on anything related to Syria. When finding articles, I was simply looking for sources that helped me understand the state of Syria before, during, and after Assad and the uprisings. I chose one of these articles because it gives a good, holistic picture of Syria – from its people to the climate to politics – and how everything factors into the Syria we know today.  One point in particular is the fact that different people have different ideas as to what being a Syrian means. For example many are Sunni-Muslims who speak Arabic, for these people that is exactly what being Syrian means. Then there are the minority groups who – by the time of the uprisings – are seen as a threat to Nationalists. This can be seen as a cause of the focus of revolution shifted to issues of politics and religion. The second article I have chosen because it related this massive topic to something very specific, reminding me of the complexity of this revolution. It focuses on a city that, 17 months after the uprising began, had decided to take their lives out of the control of the regime and created councils – including a military council – so that the city could run itself. This of course happened after months of attacks between rebels and the regime. Although daily life can still be a challenge in this city of Aazaz, the people are satisfied that they are at least not under the rule of the Assad government.