The raging war between Hezbollah and al-Nusra-Front in Arsal region raises several questions about militia wars, their features, mechanisms and outcomes. Such concerns have been raised especially after the relatively swift and decisive battle, which ended with a truce between the two parties sponsored by Lebanese General Security and International Red Cross. Under the truce, al-Nusra Front militants and their families were evacuated from the Lebanese Arsal to Syria, in addition to the exchange of hostages between the parties. This was not the first war raging between armed militias in Syria, Iraq or Libya, as such kind of war has become common in recent times, especially in countries where ideologically disparate militias fight over spheres of influence.
Key Features
Militia wars in the conflict-ridden countries in the region have various features, the most prominent of which are the following:
1- Flash wars: Battles between militias are often abruptly decided, due to limited military capabilities and the small number of militants involved in such battles. Such a pattern urges the warring parties to accelerate the resolution, which differs from the wars waged by regular troops often extending for years.
2- Politically unstable environment: Militia wars and political stability cannot coexist in states. This type of wars often breaks out in politically unstable countries suffering internal conflicts, leading to the collapse of the political system or regular armies. Exceptional cases are where wars erupt between one militia and another backed by the political system or the armed forces of the state, to achieve political goals, due to the impossibility of direct confrontation between the regular forces and such armed militia.
3- Limited geographical scope: Militia wars often occur in a limited geographic area, due to the nature of the fighting militias and their relative limited number compared to regular armies. In addition, the types of weapons and military readiness of the militia prevents the expansion of the geographical scope of the battles, as they fear to lose control of the battlefield in the event of spiraling out of its limited area.
4- Small-scale clashes: Due to the limited geographical scope of the battles, the clashes are often relatively small-scale, as militias are often characterized by the small number of fighters and the lack of military capabilities that provide scope for large-scale battles.
5- Irregular tactics: Militia wars rely on terrorist strikes and suicide attacks, especially since that most battles take place in densely populated areas, making them closer to guerrilla wars than conventional wars.
6- High number of civilian casualties: Perhaps the most striking feature of militia wars is that they do not comply with the restrictions and obligations stated in the international treaties on the battlefield. Therefore, both parties act without any ethical or humanitarian considerations. As most of militia wars occur in populated areas, the number of civilian casualties is often relatively high.
7- Flexibility in negotiation: This is a relative feature that does not apply to all militia wars, in particular those that erupt for sectarian or ideological reasons. However, what distinguishes militia wars is that they are not governed by state policies and tangled considerations, which gives more space for political maneuvering and flexibility when negotiating. This makes resolutions and compromises easier to be achieved.
8- The existence of beneficiaries and intermediaries: Rarely a militia wages a war against another without having a supporter, whether external or internal. In addition, this style of war leads to the intervention of some parties to end the conflict, whether regional or international, thus expanding the scope of confrontation. Often those parties benefit or get affected directly or indirectly by the war and its consequences.
9- Greater reliance on taking hostages: This feature was evident in the war between Hezbollah and al-Nusra Front, as hostages were used as bargaining chip to end the battle between both sides. Although taking hostages is commonplace in wars between regular armies, militia wars rely more heavily on that tactic.
10- Further integration and unity among the factions: Militia wars lead to more integration and unity among factions, particularly if the conflict was sectarian. This was evident in several battles and amounted to a full integration between the militias that were fighting each other before, and then joined forces for sectarian motives.
Ripple Effect
The rising phenomenon of militia wars may exacerbate instability in the region and lead to implications that enhance the role and clout of such militias. The most important of these implications can be summarized as follows:
1- At the political level, the implications will include the following:
A- Alternative entities: The growing influence of the militias, due to their regional victories, presents them as an alternative entity to the state. The impact of such entities becomes evident in cases of sectarian divisions, which weakens the ability and influence of the state.
B- Political influence: The triumph of one militia gives it credible political influence, regionally and internationally. Perhaps, the political gains achieved by the victorious militia exceed those of military victory, which is clear in the the Kurds’ successes in fighting ISIS, thus receiving more support to become regional and international actor.
2- At the security level the implications will include the following:
A- More instability caused by the influence of militia victory as it endorses other militia to act similarly to seek military victories and influence that enable them to attain similar gains.
B- Burgeoning arms trade in the region, in particular small and medium-sized weapons. In addition, the victory of some militia leads to strengthening their positions and acquiring more sophisticated weapons from supportive parties.
3- The expected role of regional powers in confronting the proliferation of militia wars in the region will entail the following:
A- Disarm fighting militias - except those fighting terrorist organizations - through drying up funding sources, money or weapons, and besieging them by imposing greater control.
B- Merge militias into the regular armies to either contain the fallout or benefit from their rising regional influence and military capabilities.
The Upcoming Threat
In conclusion, it can be argued that sectarian militias will likely pose the next threat post-ISIS, especially in view of their growing military capabilities and expanding influence that exceeds territorial borders to neighboring states. Moreover, such militias can exist and extend their influence within more than one country at the same time, backed by international powers that provide them with weaponry, equipment and training. Militia wars have reached an advanced stage, which reveals the growing influence of the militias inside and outside the conflict-ridden countries in the region.
