hill73_Ahmad Al-Rubaye_AFP_Getty Images_mosul

Masters of War in Syria and Iraq

Oct 27, 2016 Christopher R. Hill

The Middle East’s tragic tale of two cities – Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq – speaks to a fundamental lack of consensus in the region and within the broader international community. The lack of order in the international order is greatly complicating the task of bringing these conflicts to an end.

DENVER – The Middle East’s tragic tale of two cities – Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq – speaks to a fundamental lack of consensus in the region and within the broader international community. The lack of order in the international order is greatly complicating the task of bringing these conflicts to an end.

When the bloody conflict finally ends in Syria, there will be no victory parades, no moment of national catharsis. More likely than not, what there will be is a political arrangement that leaves Syria within its current borders but with local autonomy that reflects the diversity and – at least for the time being – the mutual distrust of its various ethnic and religious groups. No one will be happy. The accoutrements of a civil state do not exist, and there are no institutions around which to build social consensus or the rule of law.

Until these broad principles can be articulated, the war will never be truly over. Ceasefires work best – and hold the longest – when the combatants finally understand that a set of principles agreed by the broader international community will be the basis for shaping the future of their country.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Christopher R. Hill

Writing for PS since 2010
100 Commentaries

Christopher R. Hill, former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia, was US Ambassador to Iraq, South Korea, Macedonia, and Poland, a US special envoy for Kosovo, a negotiator of the Dayton Peace Accords, and the chief US negotiator with North Korea from 2005-2009. He is Chief Adviser to the Chancellor for Global Engagement and Professor of the Practice in Diplomacy at the University of Denver, and the author of Outpost.

Managing Compromise in the Middle East
Kim Badawi Images/Getty Images

Managing Compromise in the Middle East

Nabil Fahmy argues that space for genuine political deliberation is essential to solving the region's problems.

4 Add to Bookmarks
Syria’s Shattered Mosaic
PS OnPoint

Anadolu Agency/Getty Images

Syria’s Shattered Mosaic

John Andrews views the country’s civil war in the context of the Middle East’s strategic disarray, assessing how Shlomo Ben-Ami, Christopher Hill, Anne-Marie Slaughter, and others think the outcome will reshape the region.

5 Add to Bookmarks

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 in all 6 Comments on this article

Cary Fraser Oct 30, 2016

Unfortunately, it is clear that Saudi Arabia has neither the political nor religious legitimacy to prevail in its quest for leadership across the Islamic world. Like Saddam Hussein, Saudi ambitions to reshape the region will falter and the increasing military role of the US and Russia will constrain the role of the Kingdom outside of its borders. In the interim, Iran has positioned itself to ensure that its security concerns are addressed and to act as the guarantor of the survival of Shia Islam within the region.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Oct 30, 2016

The problem is that there is little to distinguish the campaign in Mosul from that in Aleppo. In both cases, you have foreign powers supporting Shia governments against Sunni resistance forces. The Sunni forces see this plainly and are far more likely to join hands in resistance than they are to accept American double-talk about how Iraq is totally different from Syria. Jabhat al Nusra's involvement in the recent rebel attacks in Aleppo may already reflect this. In the end, these parallel campaigns may simply produce a more unified and more radical Sunni resistance in Syria and Iraq that is less amenable to US influence. That is probably why Turkey is creeping closer to the battlefield in both states. Someone will have to fill the vacuum as US influence evaporates.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Emanuel Müller Oct 30, 2016

Apparently there is a shia continuum from Iran to Hezbollah dominated Lebanon now that Irak is a democracy. If this continuum and allies (Russia, China) proves its ability to survive its challengers/ quality controllers (US, Israel, oil monarchies and friends) it might become a beacon of order and stability as well as a branch of the Chinese trade network.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Oct 29, 2016

During the cold war, both Russia and the US had a working set of rules, to the point that the URSS felt confident enough to start its conversion, without war. If the US now sits and makes buddies of them, the two powers would rule the world, easily. For example, Churchill and Roosevelt started their close relation before the US public knew of it. Anyway, a sort of loose local hegemons is emerging (China, Germany, Israel, Russia, India, Japan). And confrontation spaces are becoming fuzzy, as are outer space, cyber space, submarines. Worse, next time interest rates rebound, payment of American debt interests will surpass the defense budget, and then ... the world we know will become history.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Oct 27, 2016

According to Christopher R. Hill, the "masters of war" in the Middle East are Russia, the US, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others (Europe). To be precise they are puppetmasters, who pull the strings, and control what goes on in the region. What makes it difficult for them to "come together around a set of principles that steer the region toward peace" is that they all have adverse interests - reflected by power struggle for regional hegemony between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and distrust between the two former Cold War enemies - the US and Russia.
The "tragic tale of two cities" - Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq - is based on the "fundamental lack of consensus in the region and within the broader international community." Although the two Sunni-majority cities are under siege, they are different aspects of the same war - to fight ISIS - but have diverging fates. Regaining control of them will be an important turning point for the warring parties. Unlike Syria, Iraq is not fighting a civil war, its second largest city, Mosul is surrounded by the Iraqi army and the Kurds, assisted by US airstrikes. In Syria, Aleppo is surrounded by the Assad forces, supported by Russian airstrikes, and Iranian troops on the ground. But in both cities, civilians inevitably bear the brunt of heavy shelling, triggering a mass exodus of refugees, as their homes have been destroyed.
While re-taking Mosul from ISIS is only part of the challenge, the Shia-led government in Baghdad, with its US-backed coalition will have to find a way to govern the city. A Sunni, oil-rich capital of Nineveh province, Mosul's pre-ISIS population made up of Sunnis, Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmens, as well as a variety of religious minorities. One major concern is the leading role Shia militiamen play in the offensive. They had been accused of sectarian abuses in other cities that have been recaptured. Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi has sought to reassure the Sunnis by saying only Iraqi security forces would be allowed to retake Mosul. What comes after its liberation will determine whether Iraq would break up or survive as a unitary state. The Kurds have been seeking for independence or autonomy.
Unlike Mosul, the eastern part of Aleppo is held by Syrian rebels, who fight Bashar al-Assad. His regime siege in Syria's biggest city serves to deprive its restive population of food and medicine, as a weapon of war. Vladimir Putin is exploiting Obama's inaction in Syria and help his stooge, Assad, regain as much lost territories as possible. Obama is stepping down in January and he will be succeeded - most likely - by Hillary Clinton, who might take a tougher stance towards Russia. Putin's involvement could amount to war crimes, as school children and hospital patients had been deliberately targeted.
Indeed, the Sunni-Shia strife in Iraq spawned the rise of ISIS. But Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdogan's ambition is a new source of "a deeper and even more problematic fissure" in Iraq. He said not long ago that Turkey had a “historic responsibility” to participate in the offensive to retake Mosul, whether Iraq liked it to or not. His recent speeches invoked the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, adopted by the Turkish parliament, which included Mosul and Kirkuk as part of modern Turkey. That "his country has not reconciled itself to its 100-year-old southern border with Iraq’s Ninewa Province has greatly complicated Turkey’s ability to play a role in Iraq’s healing process." For long "Arabs have long harbored deep suspicion that the Turks want more than just to protect the Turkmen minority and Sunni Arabs in the conflict. Now, Erdoğan has confirmed these suspicions, and in so doing has created conditions for more violence in Iraq."
It is most unfortunately that we are living in an era of thugs and autocrats, who make our world all the more dangerous. It is therefore important to have a strong international community that upholds international law.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Eric Weis Oct 27, 2016

My dear Ambassador Hill and fellow Polar Bear,

Is not the the entire Near East a fiction of artificial post-colonial boundaries? And is the US really any different than the EU in terms of engagement? The fact that we continue to refuse refugees is, to me, a moral abomination. America has ceased to be the lighthouse on the hill, or the torch in Lady Liberty's hands.

To me, realpolitik would involve a summit of the G-8 convened to forge a "JCPOA" for the Levant (Syria and Lebanon), with Turkey and the other relatively intact Arab states at the table. And maybe even Israel too.

In the absence of active leadership, Europe and the US are leaving an open door for Russia to establish regional hegemony. Despite Mr. Trump's fondness for Russia, I do not think that can be in the strategic interests of the West.

PS Among others, you can thank Professors Donovan and Rensenbrink for making me have these international views. Ah, those were the days...Go Polar Bears (not the Russian variety)!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.