The US Strategy In Syria Is Unraveling

[FarCenter]

On Tuesday evening, after President Barack Obama speech to the U.N. general assembly, America's strategy for Syria began to unravel.
At about 4 PM ET, 13 of the largest Islamist brigades in Syria formed the "Islamic Coalition," rejecting the Western-backed Syrian National Council (SNC) and the opposition's planned exile government.

Two hours later the State Department wasn't prepared to talk about the announcement, and instead discussed the Syrian coalition's preparations for the upcoming Geneva II peace talks.

However, those plans were inherently muddled after "nearly all armed factions that matter in Syria just issued statement saying [the] political opposition doesn't represent them," as explained by Al Aan TV reporter Jenan Moussa.

Furthermore, the Syrian government also doubts the relevance of SNC leaders — meaning that the two strongest forces on the ground do not recognize the government-in-exile backed by the West, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia.

Basically, the failure of America's Syria strategy of building up moderate rebel forces to back a Syrian government-in-exile has left its plan in shambles.

The significance of the new rebel alliance arises from the fact that "swing Islamists" — rebels fighters with good relations jihadi and moderate groups — appear to have chosen to side with more extremist factions.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-strategy-in-syria-is-unraveling-2013-9

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. We have a strategy?

I thought we were just lurching from one incoherent, event reaction to another.

[geek tragedy]

2. Which version of the US strategy in Syria is this?

There was the one where we wanted to help Al Qaeda take power, the one where we want to invade and occupy for oil? The one where we wanted to invade and occupy for Israel? The one where we wanted a war to enrich the MIC?

[leveymg]

7. It's the version where all sides turn on us and we endure years of a war we don't even acknowledge

we had a hand in starting. It's a war that predates this Administration, but which the Obama foreign policy team has escalated and spread all over the place, but doesn't seem to know what to do with.

It's called the War at the End of the American Empire, and it may be getting too late to avoid getting even more deeply into it.

[Cleita]

3. Our imperialism is what is making all these backfires happen. We want

regime change but fail to admit that it's not our call. We need to stop arming the rebel factions and Putin needs to stop arming the Syrian government. Then maybe both sides might realize a cease fire would be wise with peace talks resulting involving all sides hopefully. The only thing we would be needed for then is humanitarian aid.

However our imperialism will not allow us to do the smart and ethical actions.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

6. Nice wishful thinking. President gets paid to deal with reality

Not a "nice to have" scenario. You claim the U.S. has no power to effect an outcome it considers most favorable in regime change, but you fail to admit the U.S. has little to no power to stop Russia from arming Assad.

[Cleita]

9. Actually they do.

Putin stands to lose a lot also if Syria becomes a radical Islamist state. If everyone put their pointed heads together, they might come up with a solution that is satisfactory for everyone. It's known as diplomacy and negotiations. Look how quickly Putin came around to convincing buddy Assad to give up his chem weapons.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. Pretty simple, really. U.S. will help defeat Assad and then

Help the formal opposition party get elected. Then that government will crush these other groups as terrorists if they try to continue the fight against the new government.

[David__77]

5. The question is: why would the US help al Qaeda get elected?

It is really quite scandalous.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. They won't let that happen. Which was my point.

[leveymg]

10. Like how are we supposed to prevent it, short of lots of American boots on the ground?

Or, do you think allowing Turkey and lots of Saudi-paid mercenaries to occupy Syria is a good idea?

[David__77]

13. I suppose it's possible that non-al Qaeda jihadists come to power.

The question is why is the US supporting al Qaeda now, along with a whole range of non-al Qaeda jihadists?

[leveymg]

15. You have to answer how is that supposed to happen without another civil war?

It's pretty clear that Syria is in the process of being carved up, and that large parts of it will be warring mini-caliphates, like Eastern Libya. Oh, yes, about that Libya thing - wonderful outcomes there. A real model for Mideast development, that.

Every time we've done a regime change thing since 2000 we just smash another small country and it gets overrun by religious fanatics with guns. Why should Syria be any different?

[Cleita]

12. But your way is exactly what would get them in power.

We have left behind a mess everywhere we overthrow governments in the area with the result that Islamist radicals seize control of the govts. involved.

[pampango]

17. Al Qaeda could not get "elected" as dog catcher in Syria. Neither could Assad. Both rely on guns

to achieve/maintain power. Neither wants to see real elections.

[morningfog]

16. Easy peasy.

What simplistic non sense.

[AngryAmish]

20. If the opposition takes over they will wipe out the Alawite minority.

Back during the uprising during the Assad the First regime, the Muslim Brotherhood had a motto: Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the graveyard.

It does not matter if Al Quaida or whoever else takes over. There is going to be a genocide. THere will be genocide if the Alawites keep control.

This is an ethnic war. Religion is another reason. It is bitter, peace is not possible and we need to stop believing that there are any good guys.

[alc]

11. you're only looking at it in 3 dimensions

If you could see all 11 dimensions of the strategy you'd be in awe at how well Obama is playing everyone.

[leveymg]

18. There's a name for those with more than one 3-D mind. Schizophrenic.

[Jefferson23]

19. lol

I shouldn't laugh because it a very serious situation. The bullshit handed to Americans was obvious
on one respect due to the alleged urgency of a strike. Beware of the, we have to do this, and do it
now. Yet even with the changes that have taken place, this is a mess...all the 11 dimensions and
more so.

It's sad really, but your statement is apt regarding the confidence anyone should have of the administration
right now.

[Jesus Malverde]

14. The premise is that the US and it's allies have not been arming Islamists all along.

We have been arming and training islamists brigades in Syria for over two years.

[karynnj]

22. This is a neo con source

This is not surprising at all. No American has ever said that ALL the people against Assad are part of a unified, organized, coordinated rebel organization. In fact, testimony has made it clear that as high a percent as 25% of all people against Assad are "bad guys". There are some that have spoken of that percent increasing. (It would seem that after two years of the rebellion that this only makes sense - after all many of the "bad guys" are foreign jihadis entering a very unstable Syria, while the other groups - though labeled here as Western supported, are Syrian. At this stage, it would seem that the Syrians ready to join the opposition may have plateaued - meaning the bad guys are growing at a faster rate.)

The fact that the State Department is focusing on Geneva II is consistent with comments of not wanting to fight their civil war. I think that Obama and Kerry would like to get a political solution that would lead to a stable Syria that protects the minorities. I think the earlier policies - that Obama both inherited and expanded when Hillary was SOS, make that a difficult transition. I do NOT think it the US's job to create a Syrian government in exile against Assad. If they are backing away from that - so much the better.

I do think that Obama has a cabinet and national security team that are very divided on that. I also think it interesting that some that DU favored - like Samantha Powers - are likely the strongest supporting trying to create an alternative government and put them in power.

[FarCenter]

23. Syria rebels reject opposition coalition, call for Islamic leadership

(Reuters) - Thousands of Syrian rebels have broken with the Western-backed coalition and called for a new Islamist front, undermining international efforts to build up a pro-Western military force to replace President Bashar al-Assad.

Ever more divided on a battlefield where Assad's better armed troops have been gaining ground, allies of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) were among 13 disparate rebel factions to disown the exile leadership and build an Islamic alliance that includes the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front, commanders said on Tuesday.

Details of the numbers of fighters involved and of how they would cooperate remained unclear. But, in an online video, a leader of the Islamist Tawheed Brigade said the bloc rejected the authority of the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) and the Western- and Saudi-backed exile administration of Ahmad Tumeh.

A spokesman for Coalition president Ahmed Jarba, who was attending the United Nations general assembly in New York, said Jarba would head for Syria on Thursday to respond: "We are not going to negotiate with individual groups. We are going to come up with a better structure for organizing the fighting forces," the spokesman, Loay Safi, said.

The move is a setback for foreign leaders trying to bolster more secular rebel groups and to reassure voters skeptical of deeper involvement in Syria's civil war. Some may think again about help for the fighters, which ranges from weaponry from the Gulf to non-lethal aid from Europe and the United States.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/25/us-syria-crisis-opposition-idUSBRE98O0LA20130925

The US sponsored government in exile has little clout inside Syria.

[FarCenter]

24. Syria Rebels Reject Opposition Coalition, Call For Islamic Leadership

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023729102