The U.S.’s decision to create a new Kurdish-led border force in northeastern Syria to defend the areas captured from the Islamic State (IS) could open a new phase of conflict in in the country. Swathes of territory on the Syrian-Turkish border, mostly populated by the Kurds, are now controlled by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-Arab militia that was in the forefront of the land war against the IS. With the planned 30,000-strong border force, which will mostly draw fighters from the SDF, the U.S. is not only institutionalising the militia, but also setting the stage for a prolonged stay in Syria.
From the outset of the Syrian civil war, the U.S. has been on the losing side. The Obama administration had called for the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad and was supporting anti-Assad rebels as well as running a clandestine CIA-run programme to unseat him. But the 2015 Russian intervention in Syria sabotaged those plans and helped Mr. Assad consolidate power and recapture most of the territory lost to rebels and jihadists. Then the U.S. shifted its focus to defeating the IS and establishing its influence in the country. In that bid, Kurds, who were facing IS advances, proved helpful. At present, the country is divided into three major camps. Most cities and population centres, including the Mediterranean coast, are controlled by the regime, while rebels and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists run Idlib province (which is now under attack by regime-Russian forces). In northeastern Syria, Kurds have carved out a semi-autonomous region. It’s here that the U.S. is cultivating its proxies.
The U.S.’s plan is to carve out a sphere of influence in the middle of West Asia’s most dangerous conflict and have it guarded by the battle-hardened Kurdish forces. This enclave could help the U.S. in designing future plans in the region. But the move carries great risks. First, Turkey, an American ally and a NATO member, is already angry. Turkey, which fights a Kurdish militancy on its soil, sees any further empowerment of the Syrian Kurds as an immediate threat to security, and has vowed to fight the new “terrorist” army. If Ankara attacks the border force, that would raise tensions between the U.S. and Turkey further.
Second, throughout the civil war, the Syrian regime and the Kurds maintained a complex relationship. They were hostile to each other, but never fought against each other, barring some isolated incidents. Syrian Kurds, unlike their Iraqi counterparts, do not demand independence. Rather, they emphasise on autonomy and a federated post-war state structure. These are the issues that should be discussed as part of any final settlement between the regime and the Kurds. But the latest U.S. plans pre-empt any such future deal. This will keep Syria divided forever, leaving the Kurds fully dependent on U.S. aid in the wake of increased regional tensions, while the U.S. gets another foothold for its West Asian geopolitical manoeuvring.
