Syria’s Looming Quagmire: How the U.S. Risks Creating a Second Afghanistan
The West’s gamble with Kurdish autonomy and Turkey’s jihadist proxies could turn Syria into a fractured battleground of endless conflict.
The proposal to turn Syria into a "patchwork" of decentralized regions as a solution to prevent the rise of a centralized Islamist regime echoes historical strategies deployed in conflict zones such as Afghanistan. This approach, while pragmatic in theory, faces significant challenges and risks that require deeper scrutiny.
Decentralization as a Strategy
David Romano’s argument for decentralized power sharing in Syria suggests a model where ethno-religious groups govern their regions with autonomy, thus avoiding the domination of any one faction. This strategy aligns with the realities of Syria’s diverse population and the lessons learned from the Syrian Civil War. The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of Northeast Syria is presented as a successful example of decentralized governance, promoting inclusivity and stability while resisting extremist ideologies.
The merit of decentralization lies in its potential to prevent authoritarianism and accommodate Syria’s ethnic and religious diversity. By allowing groups such as Alawites, Druze, Kurds, and Christians to govern themselves within a decentralized framework, the risk of marginalization and subsequent insurgency could be minimized. However, decentralization also demands robust mechanisms for inter-regional coordination, conflict resolution, and economic integration, which remain significant challenges in war-torn Syria.
The Role of the United States
Romano’s analysis highlights the United States’ pivotal role in shaping Syria’s future. The comparison to Afghanistan implies a deliberate strategy to use local forces, such as the Kurds, to counterbalance adversaries like Turkey and Islamist factions. While the U.S. has maintained a limited military presence in Northeast Syria, its long-term commitment remains uncertain. The lifting of the $10 million bounty on al-Jolani signals a shift in U.S. policy, but it also raises questions about the legitimacy of engaging with groups like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), given their jihadist roots.
The comparison to Afghanistan also underscores the risks of external intervention. Just as the U.S. supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, backing the Kurds and other factions in Syria could lead to unintended consequences, including prolonged conflict and regional instability. The Kurdish question, in particular, is a point of contention due to Turkey’s staunch opposition to Kurdish autonomy near its borders.
Turkey’s Role and Regional Dynamics
Turkey emerges as a central actor in the analysis, both as a sponsor of HTS and as an opponent of Kurdish-led governance in Northeast Syria. Ankara’s support for Sunni jihadist groups and its use of proxy forces like the Syrian National Army reflect its strategic interests in preventing the establishment of a Kurdish state. President Erdogan’s repeated assertions about preserving Syria’s territorial integrity and unitary structure underscore Turkey’s commitment to a centralized Syrian state under its influence.
The proposed decentralized model poses a direct challenge to Turkey’s ambitions. If implemented, such a model would weaken Turkey’s leverage in Syria and empower its adversaries, including the Kurds. This dynamic sets the stage for a potential U.S.-Turkey conflict, particularly if Washington prioritizes support for the Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration over Ankara’s interests.
Risks of a Jihadist Regime
The article warns of the dangers posed by al-Jolani’s regime, drawing parallels to other instances where Islamist factions promised moderation only to impose authoritarian rule later. Despite efforts to rebrand HTS as a more moderate entity, skepticism remains high among regional observers. The risk of a radical Islamist regime in Syria is not limited to its domestic implications; it also poses a significant threat to regional and global security.
To mitigate this risk, Romano advocates for Western powers to prioritize decentralization and support alternative governance models. The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration, with its emphasis on inclusivity, women’s rights, and pragmatic governance, is presented as a viable alternative. However, achieving this outcome requires sustained international support and a willingness to confront Turkey’s opposition.
Conclusion
The proposal to turn Syria into a decentralized "patchwork" state represents a pragmatic approach to managing its complex realities. While it offers a pathway to stability and inclusivity, it also entails significant challenges, including navigating regional dynamics, securing international support, and addressing the risks of prolonged conflict. The comparison to Afghanistan serves as a cautionary tale, reminding stakeholders of the potential pitfalls of external intervention and the unintended consequences of supporting local factions. Ultimately, the success of such a strategy hinges on the commitment of all parties to prioritize peace and stability over short-term geopolitical gains.