Could Syria Become the 21st Century Sarajevo?

There were plenty of proxy wars during the Cold War only back then the principals had enough sense to avoid direct clashes. That was then, this is Syria where today we find the rival superpowers circling each other inside the same phone booth.

You could search the world over and never find one place where so many players are gathered as Syria.

First up is the Alawite government of Bashar Assad.

Then there's the original rebels, Syrian Sunnis.

Then we have the Sunni Islamists - the 'moderate' al Nusra, an affiliate of al Qaeda, and the far nastier Islamic State, ISIS.

The United States and its minions have been waging a bombing campaign against ISIS, first in Iraq and later also in Syria. It's been the standard, ineffective "whack a mole" stuff.

Turkey finally got off the fence and began its own air campaign only they're less concerned about ISIS than they are at bombing Syrian Kurds.

The United States was supporting the Syrian rebels with equipment and training until it discovered the rebels were surrendering all that gear to al Nusra and al Qaeda. Can't be having that. So the United States is now supporting Syria's Kurds which is really pissing off Turkey's Erdogan.

Recently three more places have been set at the table of mass mayhem. Here sit Russia, Hezbollah and now Iranian forces all supporting Bashar Assad.  Latest word has it that Iran has not only sent in units of the Revolutionary Guard but also a contingent of warplanes. They seem to be focused mainly on the moderate Syrian rebels but they also take on the Sunni Islamists every now and then.

It's hard to keep track of how many nations are waging air wars in Syria.  There's the Syrian air force, naturally, its strength replenished by replacement aircraft from Russia. There's the US Air Force and the League of Vassals, America's aerial Foreign Legion that, naturally, includes a Canadian contingent plus strike fighters from France, Britain, Australia and other European states plus Jordan and a half-hearted effort from a few Gulf States.

We want to battle ISIS. The other side seems intent mainly on attacking Syrian opposition rebels. The Turks prefer to bomb Syrian Kurds, the very group the US is still supporting. Nobody is bombing Assad, the guy who sparked the original fighting, and, with the Russians riding shotgun, it's hard to imagine the Western coalition going after him any time soon.

Syria, which is almost the same size as the state of Washington (just over twice the size of New Brunswick), suddenly has an awful lot of warplanes buzzing overhead at cross purposes.  The Russians have also introduced their highly lethal  S-300 surface to air missile batteries. Turkey, meanwhile, is clamoring for the US and Germany to reactivate their Patriot missile batteries in support of their NATO partner. Eventually someone may fire one of those things.

The Americans have been snookered by Putin and this is bound to have geopolitical ramifications throughout the Middle East. Will the Saudis and the Egyptians tolerate Shiite Iran's military presence in Syria? Will they pile on?

Could Syria become the Sarajevo of the 21st century, the place where a proxy war becomes a shooting war between the West and Russia? Those expert in these matters warn these eyeball to eyeball confrontations are the sort of situations in which rival powers can back into direct conflicts neither one of them truly wants to initiate.

Another War in Iraq?

The world is abuzz with rumours of impending war between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs. The International Crisis Group has come forward with a suggested settlement that would see the Kurds suspend their claims on Kirkuk for a decade in exchange for exclusive rights to the oil reserves in their region.

The New York Times reports that American commanders fear that a mission now underway in Mosul, "could degenerate into a larger battleground over the fragile Iraqi state itself."

"The problems are old but risk spilling out violently here and now. The central government in Baghdad has sent troops to quell the insurgency here, while also aiming at what it sees as a central obstacle to both nationhood and its own power: the semiautonomous Kurdish region in the north and the Kurds’ larger ambitions to expand areas under their control.

"The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki is squeezing out Kurdish units of the Iraqi Army from Mosul, sending the national police and army from Baghdad and trying to forge alliances with Sunni Arab hard-liners in the province, who have deep-seated feuds with the Kurdistan Regional Government led by Massound Barzani."

...the American military has already settled on a policy that may set a precedent, as the United States slowly withdraws to allow Iraqis to settle their own problems. If the Kurds and Iraqi government forces fight, the American military will “step aside,” General Thomas said, rather than “have United States servicemen get killed trying to play peacemaker.”

It's hard to imagine how the US military would react if it had to get involved. It's notionally obliged to support the government, that would be Maliki's Arabs, but Washington's closest allies in Iraq are the Kurds.

The real thorn in Maliki's side is the city of Kirkuk and the oil-riches in its vicinity. The Kurds are claiming Kirkuk as part of their territory. Referenda to settle the issue have been scheduled and postponed at least twice.

The seeds of Arab/Kurd unrest were sown in the constitution of the Kurdish Autonomous Region written with the assistance of American foreign service expert, Peter Galbraith, back when Saddam was in charge. In the wake of Saddam's removal, the Kurds threw their constitution in the face of the provisional administration of Bremer as a "done deal." Eventually the Kurds succeeded in forcing Baghdad to incorporate the Kurdish constitution into the Iraqi constitution. There it's been sitting, a ticking time bomb, ever since.

The International Crisis Group warns, "The most likely alternative to an agreement is a new outbreak of violent strife over unsettled claims in a fragmented polity governed by chaos and fear."

For those either so ill-informed, unaware or completely gullible - your surge really didn't bring peace to Iraq. No, it didn't settle anything, nothing. There was just a temporary lull in the mayhem as the parties went on about their business and prepared for what they saw coming. That goes for Maliki and his Badr Organization, Sadr and his Mahdi Army, the Sunni and their insurgent militias, the Kurds and their Peshmerga. It took a pretty infantile outlook on Iraq to believe that the Bush surge had accomplished anything.

I think it was Joe Biden who endorsed a "3-state" solution for Iraq and was mocked for it by John "Victory" McCain. In fact, if you understand the issue of the Kurdish constitution and its major, unresolved inconsistencies with the Iraqi constitution, the 3-state solution is actually the default option. Just don't tell the Old Geezer, it would break his heart.