NATO Syria Strategy: Mix of Fear, Activism

The military organization set up its own military plans for the war-ravaged country: its officers trained the militant fighters fighting the forces of the Syrian army, and some of its members like the US, Britain, and France sent special forces to the Syrian territories aiming at accomplishing surveillance missions there.
 
For the beginning, the NATO defined its strategy based on providing support for the guerilla and terrorist operations meant to topple the legitimate government in Damascus. An array of goals appeared standing behind the NATO intervention in Syria. Utterly chasing the American goals in the crisis-hit country, the NATO sought to establish a pro-Western government in Syria, deal a blow to the Axis of Resistance in which the current Damascus government is a key actor, strip Russia and Iran of their now-strong influence in the Levant, and very importantly protect the Israeli regime to guarantee that no harms are posed to Tel Aviv.
 
The NATO's strategy primarily intended to invade Syria to remove the government there, just like the Libyan fashion that saw the Western military alliance taking down the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in a sweeping bombing campaign. But it found out that Syria was not Libya. The people of Syria supported President Assad, the army firmly pushed the terrorists back, and Damascus’s allies from the Resistance camp like Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah made it clear that they could not afford leaving their ally alone and subject to invasion. All these stifled the NATO military project, and so it desperately resorted to training the fighters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the military wing of the opposition, in a bid to at least fuel and prolong the domestic conflict, now in its sixth year.
 
The second stage of the NATO strategy and intervention in Syria started in September 2015, when Russia, to the surprise of anti-Syrian sides, intervened militarily in the Syrian conflict at the behest of the Syrian government, its main ally in the region. The Russian stepping in the struggle in favor of Damascus fundamentally transformed the course of developments of the war, and forced NATO to overhaul its Syria strategy.
 
NATO’s policy after Russian Syria deployment was based on a clear retreat from the long-held stances and also steering clear of direct encounter with Moscow. A week after Moscow launched its large-scale bombing campaign against the takfiri terrorists in Syria, the NATO issued a statement warning Russia about its measures. But the subsequent developments proved that the alliance was not serious about its warning and did not desire confronting Russia. For example, when a spat rose between Moscow and Ankara following the Turkish air force shooting down the Russian SU-24 bomber over Syria, the NATO declined to firmly have the back of Turkey in the face of Russia despite Kremlin's anti-Turkish threats of retaliation. Even when Turkey’s officials warned Russia that NATO will respond to any Russian attack against their territory, the NATO leaders kept meaningfully silent and even averted verbal clash with the Russians.
 
Still, despite acceding to the Russian entry to Syria’s conflict the NATO continues its policies like arming the opposition, including the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), as well as expanding range of its operation under the international anti-ISIS coalition. It has also actively joined several operations in northern Syria. NATO also took part in the Kurdish-led Manbij recapture operation through backing the Kurdish forces, a mission that helped it firm up its position in northern Syria.
 
Following the Manbij recapture, the US as a member of the NATO strengthened further the SDF through military equipment supplying and helped them start a push to reclaim Raqqa, the capital of the self-proclaimed caliphate of ISIS. Launched on November 6, 2016, the operation, which is yet to be concluded, has helped the NATO and US take an active role in Syria’s north.
 
In general, while the Syrian crisis has experienced many highs and lows, the NATO has chosen to avoid serious military intervention. This can be understood from the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who said "there are no plans for the NATO as an alliance to go into Syria." He added that any military intervention could only get things worse. The analysts, however, note that unwillingness to take action against Damascus is largely driven by NATO's lack of direct interests and also its attempts to escape possible face-off with Russia.