Understanding Syrian mindset is key to redirecting anti-ISIS effort

On Aug. 16, Syrian government airstrikes targeted a public marketplace in Douma, a suburb of Damascus. Douma, around 11 miles outside of central Damascus, is about the distance of Bethesda, Maryland from the U.S. Capitol. Unlike areas farther north and east, there is no Islamic State presence in Douma. The town is primarily controlled by nationalist forces opposed to Assad, and who also reject the brutal vision of the Islamic State. Douma has been witness to some of the most ferocious fighting of the Syrian civil war as the Assad regime has tried—unsuccessfully—to snuff out the rebellion so close to the heart of its capital, through both air strikes and sieges.

The most recent strikes have allegedly killed more than 100 according to Al Jazeera, and were timed to coincide with the busiest part of the day, for maximum death and mayhem. National Security Council spokesperson Ned Price condemned the massacre, saying that “These abhorrent actions underscore that the Assad regime has lost legitimacy and that the international community must do more to enable a genuine political transition.”

{mosads}Yet although the denouncements have been strong, it is still difficult to see a path to meaningful policy recalibrations in Washington that would either help civilians protect themselves from such attacks, or reduce the Assad regime’s ability to carry them out in the first place. For now, at least, the ISIS-only military strategy in Syria seems set.

This is understandable from the point of view of a cautious White House that is firstly preoccupied with public outrage at ISIS’s breathtaking cruelty and with the delicate ropewalking required to keep stakeholders like Russia on the constructive side of any diplomatic efforts. However, the comparative lack of urgency regarding Assad’s atrocities sends the wrong signal to those on the ground suffering through them. In considering options for ending the Syrian conflict, it is fundamental to understand that for Syrians, Assad’s attacks are at least as devastating and enraging as ISIS’s horrifying stunt-killings—and possibly more so.

The numbers bear this out. In May 2015, there were 1125 confirmed civilian deaths in Syria, as documented by the Violations Documentation Center in Syria, a neutral and independent NGO that has been tracking conflict deaths in Syria since April 2011. Of these civilian deaths, 745—a full two-thirds– were killed by aerial bombings carried out by the Syrian Government. This compares to 82 civilians killed by ISIS in the same period, mostly through public executions.

While a civilian death in any circumstance is horrifying, the statistics are important to recognize because of the way they can help gauge Syrian public opinion. The numbers demonstrate that far more people have a family member, friend, or loved one killed by the Assad regime than by ISIS, and as a result, this is where the bulk of Syrian rage is directed.

This is important information in the context of an American strategy that specifically relies upon recruiting moderate, nationalist fighters to participate in the war on ISIS. It is clear that the Islamic State cannot be defeated by airpower alone, and with no countries eager to insert their own troops into such a violent and unpredictable conflict environment, those forces already on the ground are the best option to provide those ground troops. But the fact that so far, the Pentagon has only managed to train 54 fighters for this purpose speaks to the incredible difficulty that the United States is having at recruiting individuals. As long as the American mission in Syria remains agnostic to Assad, it structurally cannot succeed. Only a plan that includes hitting government targets—and heavily publicizing footage of successes on social media—can turnaround the American strategy’s current fortunes in Syria. This turnaround is worth pursuing.

This by no means implies that the fight against ISIS should be de-prioritized in favor of operations against the Syrian regime. It remains a dangerous foe that menaces and brutalizes Syrians while also inspiring violent zealotry around the world. It is critical to ensure that gains against Assad don’t create a pathway for further ISIS expansion. However, a complete strategy for Syria must account for both enemies—American planners much be able to chew gum and walk at the same time.

There is some modest indication that this reality is beginning to sink in, at least in the media. In its coverage of the Douma bombardment news blog The Daily Beast ran the headline, “Worse than ISIS?” For Syrians stuck in the crossfire, however, the question mark is unnecessary. Although Assad may be on the back foot in terms of territory held, when it comes to sheer carnage, there is no question about who rules in Syria. 

Ashooh is deputy director of the Middle East Strategy Task Force at the Atlantic Council.