President Bashar al-Assad’s troops in Syria are gaining ground. British Middle East reporter Robert Fisk met some of them when he visited the front lines earlier this month, and told DW about what he saw.
DW: Mr. Fisk, you’ve just returned from Syria. What were your impressions?
Robert Fisk: What you find is that there are large areas which have been destroyed, large areas which are largely depopulated, and large areas which are not only undamaged, but in which life more or less continues. This applies not only to the center of Damascus, it applies mostly to the city of Latakia, where there’s a large Alawite community, and the same applies to Tartus. So you do find certain areas of Syria where the government is still firmly in control and where some semblance of life goes on. You can go out to lunch; you can shop; you can go to your office.
How freely can you travel around Syria as a western reporter?
I drove from Beirut to Damascus. During the day there are Syrian Army checkpoints, and the road is pretty clear. When you get into Damascus, you hear shellfire from the suburb of Daraya, which is less than a mile away from the main highway leading between Beirut and Damascus. When I came in, there was an aircraft literally dropping a bomb in the suburb of Daraya, which is held by rebels. At one point I flew to Latakia, on the coast, and from Latakia I drove north right up to the Syrian government army’s front line. The Syrian government army allowed me to go into their frontline positions.
I found them a very ruthless, tough, but apparently pretty determined army. They clearly took no prisoners. They talked at one point about killing up to 700 terrorists, as they call the rebels. A general showed me a video on his phone of dead rebels with beards, and twice in the video a military boot appears and crushes the faces of the dead men.
Many of the soldiers I spoke to had been wounded. So they are tough, ruthless men on the government side, and we know the same apples to the rebels. And both sides, as we are well aware, have committed human rights abuses and war crimes. At the moment – but this does not necessarily mean it will last – the government forces in Syria are clearly taking territory from the rebels.
There are continual discussions about whether chemical weapons are being used in Syria.
We know that chemical weapons exist in Syria in the hands of the government, but there is no actual 100-percent proof that they have been used. The rebels say they have been used against civilians by Assad’s forces, the Assad government says the rebels have used them. The United Nations has one report saying that rebels have used them, but there is no proof that Assad did. I put this to a senior military officer in Damascus, and he said, ‘Why would we use chemical weapons? We’ve got MIG-29s that drop bombs and cause far more damage.’
This has been going for two and a half years. I think the Americans think that as long as they keep talking, no one will point out that they’re not actually doing anything. The problem now for the West is that the rebels they want to support are the Free Syrian Army, allegedly all defectors from the Syrian government army. They do not want to support the Islamist rebels with links to al Qaeda. But once the weapons cross the border, I don’t think you can be pick-and-choosy about where they go. So you’ve got this rather odd situation where we in the West are funneling money, support and weapons to rebels who include al Qaeda, whereas in Mali, we’re trying to kill all the al Qaeda people.
What role is Iran playing in this conflict?
The war is not about Syria, it’s about Iran. And the intention of the West is to effectively destroy Iran’s only Arab ally. And for the Iranians it’s about keeping their only Arab ally. We know that the Iranian government has given advice, but these are very, very small token forces, compared to the propaganda, which is that thousands and thousands of Iranians are arriving en masse. I did not see any Iranian soldiers on any front line.
Media reports say that Russia intends to supply weapons to the Syrian government.
Ever since the Israeli raid on military installations north of Damascus two weeks ago the Syrians have been very concerned that they may find themselves under attack again by the Israelis. They want to be able to prevent this, and I think the Russians are quite keen to give them the weapons to do that.
Is there a danger that the conflict could spread to Israel?
Israelis America’s greatest ally in the Middle East. If it bombs government forces, it’s supporting the rebels. So in a sense, we in the West are now involved militarily, by allowing the Israelis as proxies to bomb Syria. But at the moment, I can see every reason why the Israelis would want to stay out of Syria, because the Syrian army in the last two years has broken free of the corruption, and it’s become quite experienced in fighting. So if the Israelis did want to get involved on the ground in Syria, they’d find themselves fighting some very determined forces.
Would it be helpful for the international community to intervene in Syria?
Militarily, no. Politically, of course. I think the last talks between Kerry and Putin, where they actually went to talk at a joint conference, is the best thing we’ve heard so far politically. It’s interesting that the Americans and especially the French don’t want Assad regime people in a transition government. But they also don’t want a very large rebel faction, the Islamist Nusra group, to be involved either, so already we’re saying, “Let’s have a big conference, but here are the people who cannot attend.” I think the war is not over; I think it could go on for another two or three years.