The parents cited say they wish they did not have to do this but war and poverty left them no choice. That “choice” is what I would like more input on. I am not familiar with Syrian culture nor am I specifically knowledgeable about happens for good or bad economically if the family marries off the young teen girl.
The notion of a forcibly married 13 or 14 year old with a baby is shocking and offensive to our western sensibilities but what was the flip side going to be if they did not do that? Is it more an issue of convenience or survival? Assuming the girls are not being educated economic drain-wise they are basically another mouth to feed, clothe and house. Is that a back breaker for an impoverished Syrian household? What is the cost/benefit equation the family considers in doing this?
Do they get money or property from the groom or grooms family?
Is the groom’s family somehow obligated to help the entire bride’s family now that they are relatives and have kids?
Is it simply that the bride is no longer an economic drain on the impoverished family?
I don’t know about Syria specifically, but based on experiences with other places withyoung marriages, it’s often a combination of factors. The cost of one more mouth to feed, of course, is a factor.
But beyond that, the new spouse may be able to provide better security or a more prosperous household than the family can. Sometimes it is protection against something- either the bad things that can happen in a war, or the problems that a poorly supervised young girl in a chaotic situation can get in to on her own. This can be a big deal and is a big driver of child marriages that I’ve seen. In places where rape, premarital sex, a kid out of wedlock or even a bad reputation can be a lifelong disaster, leading to you being unmarriagble, likely to have to rely on prostitution or begging, an early marriage can seem like an acceptable alternative. At least she will have a home and someone to support her and her kids indefinitely. Rarely, early marriage can even be protection from abuse at home.
I think many of these families are just hoping to find an acceptable future for their daughters, don’t feel like they can provide that on their own, and want to insulate them from the risks ahead.
You can kind of see this in Romeo and Juliet. Juliet’s father is very willing to let her chose her own husband (though he clearly expects to hold the veto) and to wait until she’s older up until Tybalt is killed. Then, when he’s reminded about how quickly the world can turn violent and tragedy strike, he’s on fire to get her settled into a situation he thinks will keep her safe and secure.
From a strictly rational standpoint - for a girl in a precarious living condition, where she can’t easily provide for herself due to the local laws or social mores it makes total sense to provide herself with as many men who have obligations to her as possible. Her father and brothers (if she has them) have obligations to her and always will - but they might die. If she marries, she gains another earner/provider who has obligations to her, and the opportunity to have sons - more potential earner/providers with obligations to her. From an economic point of view, it’s the smart move.