Washington Kurdish Institute February 2, 2021
A response to Amb. Robert Ford’s article published on the Foreign Affairs on January 25, 2021. Amb. Ford’s recommendations, if implemented, would severely harm US national security and encourage intensified campaigns of ethnic cleansing campaigns by Turkey against the Kurds and the Christian and Yazidi communities of Syria.
Amb. Robert Ford, a retired American diplomat who most recently served as US Ambassador to Syria from 2011 to 2014, published an article at the Foreign Affairs titled U.S. Strategy in Syria Has Failed. The US has played an active and consequential role in the ongoing fighting in Syria, and Amb. Ford, who was based in Damascus at the outset of the protests that gave way to full blown civil war and has had a lifetime of foreign affairs experience in the Middle East, was uniquely placed to provide valuable perspective on the last decade of strife in Syria. Unfortunately, Amb. Ford begins his article by plunging headfirst into demonstrably false representations of basic facts concerning US policy in the country and the actions and motivations of other major player in this bloody conflict zone. He describes former US President Trump’s Syria policy, which included the provision of limited support for the Kurdish-led, multiethnic Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) as “nation building”, and asserts that, “after six years and roughly $2.6 billion, this statelet is America’s baby, raised under US military protection and shielded from hostile neighbors. Unable to support itself, the autonomous zone will remain dependent on US resources for the foreseeable future. An open-ended commitment of this kind is not what the United States needs, however.” In truth, the US has never supported any sort of true nation building in North and East Syria. While the US certainly appreciates the relatively safety of this part of Syria, which has hosted US forces for years, neither President Obama nor President Trump have provided any formal recognition of the AANES or its predecessors, nor have they pushed for the inclusion of representatives of the AANES in United Nations-sponsored peace talks on Syria.
Indeed, following a long and fruitful military alliance with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the US was not even willing to provide basic protection, let alone formal recognition, to the AANES, SDF, or peoples of North and East Syria when faced with unprovoked military aggression from Turkey. The Kurds were not America’s first choice when dealing with the grave threat to global security posed by the so-called Islamic State (ISIS) terrorist group. When the Assad regime brutally cracked down on protestors at the outset of the conflict in Syria and ISIS began capturing and administering territory in Syria and Iraq, the US initially attempted to engage with various Syrian Arab opposition groups. The various US programs involving these oppositionists yielded little success and indeed provided counterproductive – hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in training and equipping these groups, only to see these oppositionists scatter in the face of adversity and surrender their weapons to al-Qaida. Only following the spectacular failure of these endeavors, and after witnessing the strong and effective resistance of the Kurds of Syria against ISIS, President Obama began to cooperate militarily with them. The SDF became the primary force on the ground fighting ISIS, in close cooperation with the US-led Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. After sacrificing an estimated 11,000-13,000 fighters, the SDF eliminated the so-called caliphate of ISIS, and after years of terrorizing the peoples of Syria and Iraq and inspiring and coordinating terrorist attacks around the world, ISIS no longer held any territory. In March 2019, the SDF held a ceremony commemorating this victory, with US State Department representative William Roebuck in attendance in his capacity as Deputy Special Envoy to the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS. A major thread to US and global security was neutralized, and, due to the cooperation and coordination with the SDF, the US experienced minimal casualties in this campaign and indeed avoided any large troop deployment in Syria. Nonetheless, America gave no official recognition to the AANES and, following the defeat of the caliphate, at the direction of then President Trump, the US drew down forces in Syria and allowed Turkey and Turkish-backed jihadist proxy militias to invade once peaceful areas in North and East Syria, resulting in the death of hundreds and the displacement of hundreds of thousands.
Amb. Ford asserts that “the United States tried to use military force and financial pressure to compel Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to accept major constitutional reforms and a Kurdish autonomous zone in the country’s northeast.” However, as Amb. Ford is surely aware, US financial pressure on Syria dates back to President Obama’s Executive Order 13582 of August 2011, issued during his tenure as Ambassador to Syria and, indeed, while he was still based in Damascus. This policy of sanctions predated the Rojava Revolution, the beginning of the process leading to Kurdish autonomy and the eventual establishment of the AANES, by nearly a year. Amb. Ford himself called for sanctions and other forms of pressure less than two weeks before the release of Executive Order 13582. His attempt, one decade later, to tie US sanctions on Syria to the situation of the Kurds is blatant revisionism.
Amb. Ford calls current US President Biden to withdraw US forces from Syria and let Turkey and Russia work to counter the remnants of ISIS. ISIS was already thrown a lifeline and allowed to regroup following former President Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds and acquiescence to Turkey’s renewed campaign of military aggression and occupation of Syria in October 2019. Amb. Ford’s suggestion will provide additional life to ISIS and other jihadist groups, and weaken US interests throughout the region, from Syria to Iraq and beyond, at the expense of not only terrorist groups, but also regional enemies including Iran as well as international rivals such as Russia.
Even the most casual observer of Turkey and the Middle East is aware that Turkey, under the rule of authoritarian President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been at best, an unreliable ally to the US and NATO since he first took power in 2003. Over a decade after refusing to allow the US to open a northern front in Turkey during the campaign to remove the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Ankara once again was at odds with the US following the rise of ISIS. While the US and much of the world viewed ISIS as a dangerous thread to international security, Turkey was seemingly content to share a border with the genocidal terrorist group as it murdered and displaced thousands throughout Syria and Iraq. Turkey played no active role in fighting ISIS, and it took over a year for Ankara to allow the US-led coalition fighting ISIS to use the strategically-located Incirlik Air Base, a joint Turkish Air Force/US Air Force base. To this day, Turkey is the principal lifeline for ISIS – just recently, US the Department of Treasury publicly confirmed that Turkey remains the logistical hub for the terror group. Turkey has turned the blind eye to ISIS for years and has recruited former ISIS terrorists into the ranks of their jihadist proxies in Syria, some of whom have then been exported to Libya and Azerbaijan. Turkey’s various jihadist proxy militias are well-known for committing atrocities against Syrians, especially Kurds and other imperiled minorities such as Christians and Yazidis, during times of conflict as well as peace. The various campaigns of Turkish military aggression, executed in close coordination with the countries proxy militias, have killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands, forcibly changing the demographics of areas including Afrin, Serêkaniyê, and Tel Abyad (Girê Spî). Reports from the United Nations, Amnesty International, and other human rights groups detail the war crimes committed by Turkey and its jihadist allies and how Turkey’s zones of occupation in Syria are now lawless, where kidnapping, rape, murder, and shootouts between rival militias are commonplace. Amb. Ford’s proposal to deliver more of Syria to these jihadist groups is truly bewildering and will mean intensified bloodshed for those who sacrificed so much to defeat ISIS, and perhaps the elimination of more of Syria’s Christian and Yazidi communities.
Even President Biden, then Vice President, acknowledged Turkey’s negative role in Syria. Brett McGurk, when serving as the Special US Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, explained how the US officials were frustrated with “the NATO ally” Turkey refusing to take steps against ISIS in Syria. Nonetheless, Turkey has attempted to capitalize on international concern over ISIS in various ways, including using a recent UN Security Council Resolution aimed at blocking the financing of terrorists such as ISIS and disrupting their operations as a pretense for the passage of wide-ranging legislation to further crackdown on civil society in Turkey.
Amb. Ford’s suggestion of letting Turkey fight ISIS is clearly ill-informed, as is his suggestion to leave this important responsibility with Russia. Russia’s priority in Syria has always been to protect their own strategic foothold and support the Syrian regime rather than degrade and defeat ISIS. Prior to the Syrian civil war, the Syrian regime was a major supporter and exporter of jihadists to Iraq, where they were used to attack US interests and persuade the US not to pursue a similar strategy of regime change in Syria. Depending on the circumstances in Iraq and elsewhere, the Syrian regime may once again consider this tactic, perhaps with Russian assistance. Indeed, both Russia and the Syrian regime general make transactional decisions rather than allowing policy to be dictated by ideology. In fact, the Syrian regime has a history of cooperation with ISIS. If the US heeds the Amb. Ford’s call to cede more areas under US influence to Russia, Russian influence would be greatly strengthened in the region. Decreasing the global strategic footprint of the US is one of Russia’s key aims, and this can be seen in Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Furthermore, Russia or even NATO is not capable to fight Da’esh since no power in the world can be greater than America’s logistical and military one. Amb. Ford’s call for the SDF to join Russia’s “Sixth Corp” makes plain his desire to see the end of the most effective fighting force in Syria, one that both served US interests and saved the lives of countless US soldiers by leading the charge on the ground in the campaign to eliminate the caliphate. Russia’s priorities are clear, and their loyalty sits with the Syrian regime. In January 2018, Russia gave Turkey the green light for Turkey to invade, occupy, and ethnically cleanse the Kurdish-majority area of Afrin in northwestern Syria. Leaving to Russia would be an unfortunate abandonment of America’s most important ally in the war on ISIS and a guarantee of a return to oppression under the Syrian regime for the peoples now enjoying freedom under the AANES.
Amb. Ford acknowledges the well-established presence of Iranian forces and their proxies in Syria and is strangely resigned about their continued influence in the country. Russia is likely unwilling and perhaps even unable to contain Iranian-backed militias in Syria, and the Syrian regime is unlikely to even consider action against these groups, who played a major role in quelling the revolt against Assad from its earliest stages. The areas administered by the AANES are free of Iranian-backed militias, though this will not continue to be the case if the US follows Amb. Ford’s recommendations. If Iran once again has the whole of Syria as a base of operations, the Islamist regime will have a free hand to organize and perpetrate attacks on the US military and American interests in Iraq, where they have already killed hundreds of US soldiers, and throughout the regime. Finally, it bears mention that the Iranian Islamist regime, which has a track record of hosting various jihadist groups in the recent past, will likely pursue alliances of convenience with similar groups in Syria as a response to any drawdown of US presence in the country. Iran is ruled by a sectarian, theocratic Shi’ite Islamist regime, but, similar to Turkey and Russia, it has demonstrated a willingness to look beyond ideology or sectarian affiliation to form alliances of convenience, particularly military/para-military alliances aimed at attacking American interests and weakening US presence in the Middle East.
Amb. Ford’s article discusses the Kurds as well as the SDF, the Democratic Union Party (PYD), and the People’s Protection Units (YPG). He mentions a “Kurdish autonomous zone” and an “autonomous zone established by YPG” but is careful not to explain the actual realities of this area administered by the AANES. Against the backdrop of a bloody civil war, economic sanctions, and military aggression from various sides, the Kurds and their allies defeated ISIS and founded the AANES, giving all the various peoples of the region, who have lived through the dictatorships of two unelected leaders from the Assad family, a voice in the management of their own lives regardless of ethnicity, religion, or gender, representation. As Amb. Ford and anyone vaguely familiar with the region surely knows, the AANES is not a uniquely Kurdish project and does not place the concerns of Kurdish citizens ahead of others, but rather works to serve and protect all of the peoples of the region. Compared to areas of the country under the control of the Syrian regime and those controlled by Turkey and its jihadist proxy militias, North and East Syria is an oasis of peace and coexistence. Additionally, the AANES has consistently been the most transparent authority in Syria in addressing corruption and human rights violations.
Amb. Ford confusingly asserts that “Syria has never been a major US national security issue”. Of course, beginning in the second half of 2014, the international community was intensely focused on the threat posed by ISIS, which emanated from the Syrian city of Raqqa. As ISIS capture more territory throughout Syria and Iraq, established affiliates worldwide, and inspired and directed attacks throughout Europe and beyond, the US and others were compelled to confront the group. Hundreds of Americans, along with many thousands of Europeans tried to join ISIS, and ISIS was linked to a number of terrorist attacks in the US since 2014. ISIS, other similar jihadist groups (including those now acting as Turkish proxy militias), and the Syrian regime all have strong interests in attacking US interests.
Amb. Ford’s has presented a comprehensive recipe for disaster, and amount to a blueprint for the empowerment of many of America’s adversaries in perhaps the most terrifyingly efficient way possible as well as a request for intensified ethnic cleansing against the Kurdish people. In 2019, when Pres. Trump’s desire to appease Erdogan and led to him nearly deliver all of northern Syria to Turkey, many Americans, including 403 members of the House of Representatives from both parties, spoke out and called for support for the Kurds and sanctions against Turkey. We hope that Amb. Ford’s misguided commentary will elicit a similarly powerful reaction, as his policy recommendations show no regard for US interests or basic human rights concerns.