The foreign busybodies in the State Department, Foreign Office and the French foreign ministry, who are already now pressing for the reconstruction of a unitary Syrian state, should reflect on the country’s history. Syria was never meant to function as a unitary state. Nor under Sunni Arab majority rule, as it is likely to now.
The distinct national identities of its Alawite, Arab Christian-Orthodox, Druze, Kurdish, Armenian, Ismaili and Arab Shia populations were all recognised under Ottoman rule. And when France obtained the territory in 1919, it strove to accommodate plural identities by creating two separate states: an Alawite one in north-west Syria and a Druze one in the south-east.
But when the French gave up their attempt to control Syria in 1946, a Sunni Arab, Shukri al-Quwatli, became the country’s president. He did not discriminate against the minorities, but he did send troops with Transjordan and Egypt to invade Israel in 1948 in the name of Sunni Arab solidarity. He had high hopes of conquering the Galilee, because the Syrians had tanks and artillery left behind by the French, while the Jews only had rifles, some machine-guns, and a couple of antique 1906 howitzers.
The ensuing Arab defeat came as a terrible humiliation, which prompted the first of Syria’s many coups. The next president, General Husni al Zaim, only ruled for 137 days but set enduring precedents: although he had been in charge of the fighting as the Army Chief of Staff, he blamed civilian politicians for Syria’s defeat, and second, he was not an Arab but a Kurd — the first of a series of non-Sunni Arab rulers, found in no other Arab country.
During the next 21 years, 17 presidents followed one another. And three of those years were under Egyptian rule. In 1958 Gamal Abdel Nasser, then the very embodiment of Arab nationalism, had been invited to rule Syria as well, in what became the United Arab Republic. The Syrian elite, desperate for stability, had simply given up on independence.
This experiment in Arab unity lasted for three years and 219 days, long enough to teach the Syrian elite both civil and military that the rule of much larger but much poorer Egypt was very costly. A military coup dissolved the United Arab Republic on 29 September 1961, and six more presidents tried to rule Syria. But stability would come in November 1970 when Hafez al-Assad took control as military dictator before naming himself the president in February 1971.
With Hafez al-Assad there was no more beating around the bush on the question of ethnicity, never even mentioned by all his predecessors. He was an Alawite, therefore only a very nominal Muslim (they drink wine and believe in the transmigration of souls), and he relied very largely on fellow Alawites to control the levers of power, from the command of air force squadrons and every armoured unit within reach of Damascus, to the customs service that generated revenue much more reliably than taxes, and the police which recruited informants in every part of Syrian society.
It was Hafez-al Assad’s father, Suleiman, who had laid the basis of subsequent Alawite power over Syria. In June 1926, along with other notable Alawites, he sent a letter to the French Prime Minister Leon Blum, to explain why his people — mostly peasant farmers in those days — could never live under Muslim rule. “The spirit of hatred and intolerance plants its roots in the heart of Muslim Arabs toward everything that is non-Muslim,” he wrote, warning of the risk to Syrian minorities if France granted independence. At the time the French were organising their colonial army for Syria, and thought it prudent to favour Alawite applicants along with Druzes, Ismailis and a few Christians, all much more likely to be loyal to France against majority Arab Sunni demands for independence.
The disproportionate number of Alawites in the officer corps allowed Hafez al-Assad to seize control of the armed forces in 1970. But the elevation of Alawite farmers into the ruling class would ultimately undo the 54-year long regime of Assad father and son that finally collapsed two weeks ago. The sons of farmers moved into Damascus and other Syrian cities to exploit their Alawite connections to occupy lucrative government positions or work in state-connected firms, and were less and less willing to serve as soldiers, gendarmes and spies to protect the regime from its enemies.
For many years this enfeeblement of the Alawites was masked by the rise of Iran’s power in Syria. Tehran’s militantly Shia rulers needed bases in Syria to build up Hezbollah in Lebanon, and to claim overall Muslim leadership against Israel. They therefore chose to accept the exceedingly heretical Alawites as both Muslim and Shia.
Iran’s support allowed the Assad regime to cling to power for years, even in the face of the mass “Arab Spring” protests led by the Sunni Arab majority that started in December 2010. The Revolutionary Guards trained Shia recruits from Iraq and as far as Afghanistan to repress the Sunni majority rebels all over Syria, while relying on higher grade Hezbollah units to reconquer strongly held towns and city quarters, with bombing support from Syrian aircraft and Russian fighter-bombers.
Determined to resist by all means possible including the use of chlorine and mustard gas, the regime survived for another 14 years. But it could not survive Israel’s demolition of Hezbollah, and its clear-cut aerial victory right over Tehran. The thousand or so Sunni fundamentalist rebels of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham who drove into Aleppo on 29 November, would easily have been stopped by a Hezbollah battalion in the past, but not this time. And neither could Iran’s Revolutionary Guards be flown to support the regime because the Israelis would not have allowed it. After Iran’s air force did not even try to resist Israel’s 26 October attack near Tehran, the entire edifice of Iran’s military power was exposed as a sham. Assad fled just in time to avoid certain death.
The Foreign Office, State Department Near East Bureau, and French Quai d’Orsay should pause to reconsider this history. The Alawites might be beaten down but not the Kurds in the north-east, nor the Druzes in the south-east.
There are other ways to accommodate plural identities. Switzerland, for example, once the scene of civil war, caters to the diverse preferences of its multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religious population with 26 different cantons, each of which has its own government, constitution, and primary language. The last time Swiss took up arms against each other was in 1847, but the newest canton, French-speaking Jura, only acquired its independence in 1979.
Of course, there are glaring differences between ultra-prosperous and perfectly tranquil Switzerland and war-ravaged Syria, but the former’s accommodation of diversities at the local level is far better than any attempt at nation-wide ethnic/religious accommodations, as in India, where the original idea of helping the lowest-caste “untouchables” that started under British rule has escalated over the years into a system of privileges (including in university admissions) for whatever group is strong enough at the ballot box, including a newer “Other Backward Classes” category that embraces almost a third of the population. A unitary Syrian state without strong local governments would be disastrous, especially because each city and some larger towns has its own distinct urban culture shared by most ethnicities and religions.
Perhaps the Syrians are best left alone to rebuild their state as they see fit. But if benevolent Western officials do intervene, they should not automatically favour a unitary and centralised state — a preference unfortunately shared even by American officials who come from a federal state. A confederal Syria would be a much better alternative.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m a fan of the federal republican system, and a 3-branch government, co-dependent on the others in certain ways, and superior in other ways. Each region in the USA has the federal government in miniature, ditto for each city and county. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, after all …..
This kind of system works in cultures that accept a divide between church (mosque) and state, but that is not Sunni Islam.
I’m sorry, but where I live in the USA, the city government operates on the authoritarian model. Every time I watch city council meetings in the last 2-3 years, I see a “rubber stamp”. The city council approves, sometimes with polite questions asked, every ordinance that the city manager’s office proposes. Also, it approves, commonly without debate, every request for tax spending to benefit real estate and construction interests. The only assertion of authority by the city council in the last several years that I recall was submission to a woke political group to prevent a Chick-Fil-A restaurant at the main airport. In fact, the executive branch, which is headed by a manager hired by the city government, rules. And it rules with no resistance to real estate and construction companies.
Hmm …. interesting! But it perhaps shows that as authoritarian as your city government is, the next city over is unaffected by their tendencies or competencies, or lack thereof. By subdividing political authority into regions, towns, states, etc., and combined with regular elections, you ensure to some extent that both good and bad impacts are limited in their scope and duration.
It’s strange that the mandarins of the State Department, Foreign Office etc have stopped reading or have chosen to ignore reading the troubled history of courting Sunni Islamic fundamentalism.
Trying to expect those who swear on Sharia and who only believe in violent deaths for ” kafirs” is living in several fool’s paradises simultaneously.
A rare good article on Syria from UH. Other than the last paragraph which attributes “benevolence” to misplaced selfish policy imperatives. And which actually thinks that this chaotic rabble guided by fanaticism can produce stability.
And a very rare good article and analysis from Luttwak, who has managed to keep his own prejudices from shining through. Long may that continue.
You just can’t see them
He wants you to support his war with Iran, and you will
I said managed to keep his prejudices from shining through, not that he didn’t have any or that I’m not fully aware of them.
And I most certainly don’t support a war with Iran, particularly one in which the UK is involved in any way. However it will get involved, in its role as the United States’ poodle, for no benefit whatsoever for itself and its people (but very likely to the benefit of its rulers who will be well rewarded…as Johnson obviously was with regard to Ukraine).
“well rewarded…as Johnson obviously was.” How is it obvious please?
I’m sorry to say it, but I’ve switched off rom reading EL’s stuff. I’m only commenting here to say that the headline alone makes me wince. Of course Syria will never be united (except by brute force imposed on the unwilling) and nobody with the slightest modicum of sense could possibly think otherwise. Western leaders should try something novel: speak the truth! Some political problems, whatever the cause, are insurmountable and the only solution is to allow those directly involved to sort it out. Is that callous? I suggest pragmatic. But what if the ‘wrong’ people end up in charge of a large part of the region, ISIS say? Pragmatically, crush them and let the reaction start again. Of course, the old-fashioned method was much less murderous; it was called colonialism and, though imperfect, actually improved people’s lives in many parts of the world. And now I’ll take cover!
You’d be hard-pressed to tell the difference between HTS, Al-Qaeda, and ISIS, and in fact Jake Sullivan remarked in a (leaked) email that “Al-Qaeda are on our side in Syria” – as were HTS and ISIS, the latter of whom provided the US a (illegal) pretext to occupy the grain and oil-producing North East third of Syria while failing to crush ISIS the way the SAA, Hezbollah and Russia did in the rest of the country.
In fact, whenever the SAA attempted to root out ISIS in the North East they were bombed by the USAF, essentially making the latter ISIS’ Air Force.
If all this doesn’t seem to make much sense, research “Oded Yinon” and “Clean Break”, and suddenly Wesley Clarke’s “we’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years” admission (see youtube) makes it clear that pretty much everything the West does in MENA seems to be in the service of the “Greater Israel” project.
Yes of course the USA supported IS, even dropping ammunition to them “by mistake”…40 tons no less…whilst pretending it didn’t.
Of course there will eventually be “blowback” as in another 911 event, presumably when IS decides to take Israel…which it will.
The US fought ISIS in Iraq (once the latter had reversed their decision to exclude US forces from their soil) but deliberately left corridors open to the West so they to escape into Syria, regroup, and challenge Assad.
The US then left ISIS alone until the day after Assad fell… at which point ISIS were no longer a useful proxy to pin SAA forces, and it was “bombs away!”
Ask yourself this: How was it that ISIS were expunged from everywhere in Syria, except in the NorthEastern areas… which the US occupied?
You’d think it would eventually dawn on the Sunnis they were being used, but it seems a particularly hard lesson for them.
Read the article..before you pass judgement (the headline is not appropriate, imv only rhetorical)
He is on the money.
The challenge will be for them to respect difference. Possibly the Sunnis can.
Indonesia however managed to accommodate a Shia state.
Seeing someone argue as early as the 1920’s that Islamic radicalism would be a major problem and result in the death and persecution of millions should be held up as prophetic today. The fact that the man making the claim was the father of the autocrat who kept Syria a mostly stable country for several decades tells us what we all should have learned by now. Democracy isn’t always the answer. You can’t have a free and open society unless people want to have one, and the Muslims clearly don’t. In such a situation, there’s not much any foreign diplomat or government can do but support whoever will keep the lid on the kettle so it doesn’t spill over and cause problems elsewhere. Hafez Al-Assad can claim to have done exactly that for many decades, and one has to doubt whether Syria’s next dictator will be similarly successful. His legacy and reputation may be greatly improved once the world comes to better understand the alternative.
No democracy isn’t always the answer.
Hong Kong became prosperous, indeed wealthy, without being a democracy. What it had was stability, a reasonably fair legal system, and capitalism with not too much corruption.
The fool Patten then introduced “democracy” in the last years of British rule basically as a bit of personal virtue signalling, but not as any benefit at all to the people of Hong Kong.
Barrington Moore’s magnum opus should be read by Western busybodies to realise that democracy is clearly not a structure which can be imposed by the West on societies in the Middle East.
The problem is also a remarkable cynicism in approach in trying to whitewash Islamic zealotry by trying to work with it; till it hits out. The only force strengthened by events in Syria, as some comments here have shown, is Erdogan who has Pan Islamist ambitions.
I learned a lot from this essay. Thanks
Syria now, has only one future. Libya 2.0 with added sectarianism. As bad as Assad was he was far more preferable to what’s coming down the tracks today. Yet again, this is all our doing.
100%, the West continue to shoot itself in the foot.
How can it be all our doing if Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Russia have all also been involved in Syria?
Hilarious article, no mention of Israels role in the coming destruction of Syria
Israel will back any and all factions at various times, to create chaos for their benefit
If ‘their benefit’ is the survival of the Jewish state, then Tally Ho.
Will they allow you your own state too ?
Yes, Israel’s survival is at risk. Sure, they have nukes, but it’s existential see!!
How many of the indigenes is it OK to kill so that the “Jews” in Israel can maintain/extend their apartheid State?
Thanks for your reply….I’m going to guess that your background is not Jewish…it’s nice to see Gentile supporters…. Whether or not you are Jewish or not…thanks…..I see from the responses to you that Britain has many Palestinianist Gentiles who love to chant river to the sea at one of your habitual pro Holocaust 2 masssive demonstration in London and elsewhere, and mock Israel’s “existential” fight for its life from genocidal Iran with the support of majority of UN members.
They’re already talking of settlements on the newly annexed land in the Golan Heights.
All in the name of defence obviously
The author is naive in the extreme if he sincerely believes pluarlism has any future in Syria. The article fails to mention Turkey and Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is odd given they are the victors of the insurgency, the latter forming the new government.
Erdogan is a Sunni Pan-Islamist. HTS (and their allies) are Sunni Islamists. Earlier this year it was revealed Erdogan has built an alliance with Sunni Islamists in Iraq – and a Sunni autonomous region within Shia-majority Iraq is the goal.
Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Islamic state that has been busy destroying non-Sunni forces in Yemen. Meanwhile Israel has just demolished non-Sunni forces at its borders, and crippled the strategic reach of Shia Iran.
What we are seeing is a grand alliance of Sunni Pan-Islamists taking control of the Middle East and further afield. Allied with them are Israel, the USA, and us. The pattern is the same: secular / nationalist leaderships are weakened by Western invasion or sponsored insurgency, followed by a slow expansion of Sunni influence and power.
The struggle between Shias and Sunnis in the last 60 years has decimated every other ethnic minority in the Middle East. Once large populations of Christians have disappeared. Druze are in rapid relative decline. Meanwhile Sunni Saudi Arabia, our *ally*, is quite literally a Sunni apartheid state with non-Sunnis banned from many government jobs and barred from marrying Sunnis. This is the future for Syria. And it isn’t pluralism.
He’s NOT naive in any way, he knows exactly what the plan is
Will Turkey attempt a return of the Ottomans?
A great piece, as always, from Luttwak.
It might bring empires back as an acceptable solution.
Solution to what, I am unable to say.
A lot of sound historical facts up until 2010 and then his hopes for today.
I was there in Dec 2010: the ‘Spring’ was no Arab Spring but a rebellion incited by the US, Saudis, and Qataris through the CIA in order to destabilise the country. (You could spot them by their boots, their cigarette packets, and the ‘strange’ Arab accents) Over 90% of Syrians knew that the Assads were the sole bulwark against an Islamic theocracy. The Western idea that so-called ‘democratic’ groups might win was either naive or disingenuous. Personally, I wholly suspect the latter as it suited their aims to destabilise Syria for the Zionists and Neocons.
As to the author’s hopes for today, well, ‘benevolent Western officials’ about sums up, again, either the naivety or the disingenuousness of this phrase.
It’s interesting that Edward didn’t reference Afghanistan. As someone who spent a fair amount of time there, the irony of the coalition attempting to impose a strong, centralized government was not lost on me. Especially when my fellow Americans were leading the charge. I would often muse “if only we had an example of decentralization that we could use”. The fact is we imposed the centralized model on AFG because it made our lives easier. That’s why the French and British did the same.
the root cause is simple – the deciders in the foreign policy and defense establishments of most countries are fully steeped in a centralized model and have little experience or trust with decentralization.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. As one of the commenters pointed out, it’s likely going to be turks who will impose those their will and that will make it unlikely anyone else’s interests will be served.
I think the root cause of “the West” wanting highly centralised states is that it’s a lot easy to buy out the leadership
Yes, and facist rulers are less anti-Zionist than are their people.
Bingo! You get the cigar…in fact a full box!
The younger Assad’s problem was that he rejected the West’s advances…wife courted by Vogue, nice write ups in the Western msm about his education and medical profession…
And then he was rude in response to a visit by Blair (I think…)…from then on Assad was “the bad guy” and duly doomed.
It is too late now for outsiders to leave Syria alone.
No mention of the word “Baath” — strange (and inexcusable)
For people interested in the back story of the modern Middle East, I suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Peace_to_End_All_Peace
A confederated state of various Arabic speaking peoples cobbled together as Syria would be a unique achievement if it lasted more than a year like independent Hatay in the 30’s before the French helped Turkey annex this part of Syria Maybe there should just be a couple of independent states as the French first had it….Damascus state, Aleppo State, Kurdish state….
I see you left Jews out of the minorities in the thirties before being massacred and ethnically cleansed.
Good reason for Israel to be Israel and not reclaimed as a state of Palestine with a permanent Jewish minority in an “Arab and Muslim” state. That Jewish minority would only diminish over time as the “Arab Muslim” wish…either through massacres or forced dispossession as happened to Jews in each and every”Arab” state and Iran and Turkey.
Syria, a creation of Sykes-Picot, is a conglomeration of distinct cultures and tribes that would probably be content in their own statelets. Hafez unified the country only with outside help from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. In opening his prisons, tailing up more than 600,000 killed in the civil and dealing with a huge Syrian refugee population in western Europe, we see how “effective” that was at keeping the country together.
Perhaps have a plebiscite in the country and then divide the land up. Yes, there will be killing, winner and losers. Kind of how India and Pakistan split up. Then, hopefully the sides can settle down for some peace and harmony.
Right. Some kinds of people can handle freedom and democracy, others just can’t, and it’s cruel to expect them to behave as adults and stop killing each other in partisan, ethnic, religious, and tribal feuds. Right? Right?
Old England is dead. Just look at pictures of the country in any decade you choose up until the early 70’s for further details. May the good Lord help our young with where the country is heading now at a break neck speed and an unstoppable trajectory
? What’s that got to do with the article above?
I suppose it’s just naivety to think ‘why can’t populations be left to sort themselves out’