There is no doubt that the decision by General Mazloum Abdi, commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), to dissolve the forces is a historic one. This is because it steers the Kurds away from a path of bloodshed and similarly removes other Syrians from that same trajectory of confrontation with their Kurdish brothers.
Beyond that, the historic nature of this decision embodies a fundamental shift in the course of resolving the Kurdish issue, moving it from a settlement through violence to one via political means. The latter is arguably the only path toward solving and addressing the complex and difficult issues in Syria's current reality. Violence only breeds violence, and bloodshed only leads to more bloodshed - a reality for which many proofs exist in Syria, the most brutal of which was the Assad regime's recent war against the Syrian people.
However, a positive outlook on the decision to dissolve the SDF cannot be viewed in isolation from the surrounding environment, which exerts major influence on its repercussions and the subsequent effects that will emerge. These outcomes are directly linked to the policies and practices that will be adopted and implemented across various Syrian levels, particularly by the government, as well as elite and popular circles on the other hand.
The Syrian populace, including the ruling authority, forms the core of the environment surrounding the decision. This population is divided into three main positions, with limited nuances and some variations.
The first is present among supporters of the dissolution decision. It begins within the inner circle of the SDF leadership and the Syrian government, extending to parts of the elite and a segment of Syrians who embrace the idea of a peaceful resolution to the Kurdish issue. This view has been present and continuous over the past two decades despite the ebbs and flows experienced by Syria during that period.
The fall of the Assad regime and the birth of the new authority allowed for the resurgence of this stance, which developed through agreements between the SDF and the government. These developments ultimately led to the dissolution following the move to integrate northeast Syria into state institutions, including military formations, primarily the SDF forces.
The second position is represented by divisive individuals from diverse Syrian backgrounds. This is particularly true for those with hardline nationalist leanings among both Arabs and Kurds. The policies of the two Assads specifically contributed to escalating these tensions, despite the fact that their regime applied the most violent, oppressive, and predatory policies against the coexistent areas of Arabs and Kurds in the Syrian Jazira and elsewhere.
Regional and international foreign policies also helped fuel this escalation, pushing both sides toward radicalization. This was further sustained by three newly introduced factors: funds, weapons, and political backing. Most importantly, it was driven by the desire of certain local leaders to play a political role after being excluded and enslaved during the era of the two Assads' regime.
The third position spans the gap between the first two opposing currents. It comprises a broad, unorganized spectrum of Syrian society with diverse and often shifting viewpoints that are captive to a variety of factors. Some of these are tied to politics, ethnicity, and regional affiliations, while others are influenced by new media and social networks, creating a complex arena.
Broadly speaking, however, this trend remains closer to the general Syrian ethos - one that shuns extremism, embraces coexistence, promotes the values of shared living, commits to civil peace, and desires a return to normal life after all the disasters and hardships the population has endured. The underlying spirit of this position is reinforced by a long history of coexistence, not only between Arabs and Kurds, who have frequently intermarried and shared economic, political, civic, and social lives, but also across all components of the community, regardless of their affiliations.
Ultimately, the broader Syrian environment surrounding the decision to dissolve the SDF is positive and highly promising. Because the outlook is so favorable, it is vital to closely monitor the upcoming positions, policies, and actions that will follow. This dissolution is merely a prelude to a deeper, ultimate objective.
The dissolution itself is not the end goal, but rather a vehicle to achieve three objectives: establishing a political approach to national life, healing the scars of the past conflict, and normalizing relations between Arabs and Kurds. The goal is for this relationship to serve as a political blueprint for the entire country, including sensitive regions like the coast and Sweida, both of which are expected to be at the top of the Syrian political agenda in the near future.
It goes without saying that these objectives include issues relevant to all Syrians, such as freedoms, human rights, and political inclusion. At the same time, it includes specific aspects that apply to the Kurds, such as cultural issues related to language and traditions.
In most, if not all cases, the role of the authority is pivotal on both sides. It is the primary actor in designing and implementing the political, economic, and social openness required in northeast Syria and other regions. Similarly, it is responsible for addressing existing problems, such as implementing transitional justice, resolving issues of displacement and enforced disappearance, improving living standards, and opening better horizons for development and progress.
Meanwhile, the role of the Syrian elite - both Arabs and Kurds - is no less important than that of the authority in the aftermath of the decision to dissolve the SDF. In its general form, this role is not limited to strengthening ties between the authority and the people. It also entails devising better ideas, working models, and relationships for both sides, and developing positive behaviors and practices among the public. Foremost among them is combating tendencies toward extremism, radicalism, and bullying against other individuals and groups, moving beyond that to criminalize such practices, and fostering accountability while strictly enforcing the law against perpetrators of these crimes.
