The Specter of Syrian Civil War

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad

The majority of the Syrian population is Sunni Muslim, while the ruling Assad family comes from the minority Alawite sect. The Alawites were traditionally downtrodden in Syria. They’ve been careful to ally themselves with other minorities, including Christians and Druze since their rise to power in the mid-20th century. Historian David Lesch says they won’t let go of power easily.

“It almost seems as if the Alawites now in power feel as though it’s a duty to all of those Alawites who have raised their sect into a position of power in Syria,” said Lesch. “That it would be betraying what they had done if they let go of power.”

For all its faults, the Assad regime has cultivated a kind of secular pluralism that has allowed different religions to coexist relatively peacefully. And the protestors themselves have been calling for national unity.

But as the conflict between the protestors and the regime intensifies, so does the potential for exacerbating the differences that lie beneath the surface. Robin Yassin-Kassab, a London-based writer of Syrian descent, says there are two poles of Syrian existence and you can’t ignore either one of them.

“One of them is the sectarianism, which is bad,” Yassin-Kassab said. “It exists. We can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. Amongst some people it exists quite strongly. On the other hand, there’s this ancient tradition, thousands of years old, before Islam and Christianity really, this ancient tradition of disparate groups living together in cities and coexisting. Syrian history kind of oscillates between these two poles.”

Yassin-Kassab says the Syrian regime is stoking fears of sectarian conflict to shore up support. He says the regime wants to portray the demonstrations as akin to the violent tactics of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria in the 1980s.

The government’s crackdown back then culminated in a massacre of 20,000 people in the town of Hama. It still haunts people today. But, Yassin-Kassab says the two situations are not the same.

“Now we’ve had Alawis and Christians and Druze and so on have been involved in the protests,” said Yassin-Kassab. “There have also been people from all communities shot and tortured and the overwhelming majority of slogans are for national unity. People are calling things like “the Syrian people are One. It’s not a sectarian uprising and the regime is trying to pretend that it is.”

Yassin-Kassab shared an ominous anecdote to share about a friend from a prominent Alawite family unconnected to the regime.

“His parents are receiving threatening phone calls from anonymous numbers,” said Yassin-Kassab. “People saying things like ‘We know where you are, we’re coming after you, your time is up.’ His parents believe that these are Syrian Sunni Muslims, ordinary people, calling up and threatening what’s going to happen to the whole community once this regime has fallen. I believe and my friend believes that it’s actually more likely the Mukhabarat, the secret police, who are calling them up trying to scare them.”

Historian Anne Alexander, a fellow at Cambridge University, also thinks the regime is trying to use sectarianism as a counterrevolutionary tool. She says the real differences in Syria are not ones of religious identity but of social class and geography.

“One view point that I fundamentally disagree with is the perspective that sees the Middle East as some kind of fermenting mass of people who all hate each other on religious grounds,” said Alexander. “And that once you remove the strong state this will all fly apart into people trying to kill each other because their neighbor is from a different religion.”

In fact, says Alexander, the history of the region shows that the gut reaction of national protest movements is to fight for unity, while time and time again, the gut reaction of regimes is to use any mechanisms they can to break that unity apart. In Syria’s case that impulse could hasten the slide toward civil war.

Discussion

One comment for “The Specter of Syrian Civil War”

  • Anonymous

    Jeb Sharp’s wishes to diminish the potential of sectarian and/or ethnic in the Syrian rebellion.  Setting aside the very limited number of individuals who submit opinions for the article, Sharp fails to report that the national unity has been fragile in the area as well as limited democratic results of the “Arab Spring.”

    The 2003 invasion and conquest of Iraq did not lead to democratic and unified state.  Presently, the former Iraq is divided into three areas–Shia, Sunni, and Kurd.  The Kurds have a state in all but name.  Tensions have arisen between the Kurds and the Shia government over oil, and will probably do so again.  The Sunnis no longer have the dominate political position, the civil conflict between the Sunnis and Shia resulted in thousands of causalities.  American money bought off the Sunni insurgents, but it could explode again.  After all the US expenditure in blood and money, the Shia government just may end up in the Iranian camp when the US departs.  In all of this, it is rarely mentioned in the western press of the Iraqi Christians being driven from their homes.

    Lebanon is the poster child for sectarian divisions.  Before the 1970’s civil war, Lebanon was ruled by community strong men who divided up the offices and influence of the country.  In 1958, the US landed troops in Lebanon to quell a potential outbreak of war.  The civil war that followed twenty years later has left divisions that have been papered over by various agreements.  But the one man one vote principal still does not rule Lebanese politics.  Rivalries are alive and well here.

    Jordan is a bomb waiting to explode.  There is a divide between the tribes that support the king and the urban citizens that trace their descent from Palestinians.   Jordan may seem unconcerned about the event unfolding, but an outbreak of spring fever could well see city dwellers confronting a monarch and his tribal supported army.

    As for the internet sponsored democracy, Tunisia remains in flux and the prospects of a new constitution seems further away.  Who runs Tunis?  Not the people so far.  Egypt may have removed Mubarak (and there are a lot of complaints about the US failing to support the dictator), but the government is still run by the military.  In the wake of promised elections, what do you think would happen if an anti-American government was elected by popular vote?  Three billion dollars buys a lot of military influence.  The recent attacks upon the Christians is also a foretaste of things to come.

    As for the example of “humanitarian military intervention,” Libya certainly should be kept front and center every time someone wants to jump into Syria.  The fear of massacres that did not occur is far outweighed by the thousands of dead and wounded in the civil war that is.  For those with a little more knowledge about Libya, they would also point out that this civil war has also elements of tribal and regional flavor.

    Civil war is real in Syria.  With each day of confrontation between the government and the rebels, bitterness and resentment grows.  The chants of “peaceful” ring hollow as the underlying desire for retribution and reprisals thrives.  Revolutions rarely end in a peaceful transition.  They are marked by death–often widespread–and by destruction or confiscation of property.  If only 5% of Syria’s population (around 500,000) become radicalized, sectarian warfare will win out as citizens will align themselves with their coreligionists.  Once loose, real as well as imagined insults will be avenged.  There is going to be a lot more than 1500 dead when the bullets stop flying.