Why Turkish and Saudi Boots on the Ground in Syria Can Be Undesirable for Washington

While the United States, Russia and Europe have recognized that the conflict in Syria has no military solution, the most active regional powers still focus on the use of military power.

Attempts of outside forces and internal players to turn the tide in the Syrian conflict are increasingly becoming a topic for discussions and debates. After peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition forces began with great difficulty in Geneva, there has been a spate of statements that some Arab states and Turkey will be ready to send their troops to Syria if a US-led coalition launches a ground operation there. There was also talk about American boots on the ground in the Middle East.

It seems that while the United States, Russia and Europe have recognized that the conflict in Syria has no military solution, the most active regional powers still focus on the use of military power.

The potential Middle Eastern “game changers” seem to be increasingly afraid of a political compromise enabling Bashar al-Assad to retain power for a transition period and try to continue his rule after it ends. Both Turkey and the Gulf Sunni monarchies still demand Assad’s departure. This is also the preliminary condition voiced by opposition groups they support. In other words, while the global players have achieved some sort of unity, which was enough to start the peace talks, the regional actors’ positions have remained rigid.

In order to understand if the “boots on the ground” statements are, or are not, bluff and if the countries which make them can provoke direct escalation, it makes sense to examine how the current situation in Syria is different from other conflicts in the Middle East.

1. A high level of unpredictability. Close interaction of various forces (including the militaries) with different interests and goals makes the situation around the Syrian conflict extremely fragile. Navigation errors, accidental clashes or premeditated provocations can instantly and irreversibly change the balance of forces.

2. Personification of decisions. At the regional level, more and more prominence is given to the will of individual leaders and players, who are increasingly guided not by national interests, but by national politics requiring the actual or prospective national leader to demonstrate force and determination.

3. Vague strategic goals. The war on Daesh (a goal formally shared by all) has generated new unexpected alliances and new enemies, so that old foes have become even more assertive. So, for Turkey fighting Daesh will always be a secondary goal, since its authorities believe that their principal enemy is the Kurds who have strengthened their positions during the Syrian conflict. Likewise for the Saudis, countering Iran’s geopolitical plans is much more important.

4. The role of external forces who try to prevent weakening of their positions. For the regional powers, the Syrian crisis is not about fighting the ruthless Islamists. It boils down to traditional competition and drawing “red lines”, which are not to be crossed. In this context, the tragedy of Syria looks purely instrumental. It is no coincidence that the talk of “boots on the ground” began after the successful offensive of the Syrian Army, supported by the Russian airstrikes and aided by Iranians and Hezbollah. It will not necessarily mean the victory of either side, but threatens to change the rules of the game again.

The aforementioned factors suggest that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia will continue to solve their issues: Turkey will try to control Syrian areas along its border, while Saudi Arabia will keep supporting groups it has ideological and political affinity with. At the current stage, these issues sharply reduce interest in the peace talks whole result is hard to calculate, while military invasion is more reliable and can bring more dividends.

Moscow and Washington have agreed to continue to support Syria peace talks, but the question is whether the United States wants to rely on its regional allies for the purposes of a ground operation, if they see sending troops as a way to promote their own interests, which do not necessarily coincide with those of America.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.