Syrians on both sides oppose US strikes
Local rebels and pro-regime supporters are both critical of the US-led strikes on the Islamic State for various reasons.
The US-led coalition has finally begun its military campaign against the Islamic State (IS) and other extremist groups inside Syria, plunging this war-torn nation into yet more uncertainty and turmoil. There is widespread rejection of the coalition strikes across the dividing lines inside Syria. Contrary to their political leaders’ stances, Syrians from both camps are against foreign military action, but for entirely different reasons. Aside from the immediate humanitarian worry about potential civilian casualties and the fear that it may prove counterproductive and lead to increased radicalization, each side has its own unique concerns.
Ammar is a longtime Baath Party member and a die-hard regime loyalist. While he did not directly lay the blame for the situation on the regime, he did at least hold it partly responsible. Flustered with indignation, he said, “We were once a powerful nation and a big player in the region. Look at us now — even tiny Bahrain is bombing us. We’ve become a laughingstock.”
This consternation is quite palpable among regime supporters, who feel a mixture of frustration and humiliation at what has become of their country’s sovereignty, although no one blames the regime directly, alluding instead to plots and conspiracies by traitors, Arab nations and Turkey. The fact that the Syrian regime was informed beforehand of the impending strikes came as little consolation.
For its part, the regime seems to be quietly happy about the strikes, in stark contrast to its main backers, Iran and Hezbollah. To the regime’s thinking, it has successfully achieved one of its main objectives: turning the conflict in Syria from a mass uprising into a civil war, and finally to a war against terror. Furthermore, no longer is anyone talking about regime change, which seems to be completely off the table, at least in the short to medium term. Finally, destroying the powerful and capable jihadist groups on the ground will enable the regime’s forces and their allies to regain the upper hand on the battlefield, possibly winning a decisive military victory that ends the conflict. Those groups have proven to be the fiercest and most effective forces fighting the regime, causing it to lose considerable territory and men. Removing them will be to the regime’s advantage, or so it thinks.
