Middle East

U.S. still searching for allies in Syria

File - Free Syrian Army fighters look at the sky as they stand on a truck mounted with an anti-aircraft gun in Maarat Al-Nouman, Idlib province May 20, 2014. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

WASHINGTON: Despite years of diplomacy and a CIA operation to vet and train moderate rebels, the U.S. finds itself without a credible partner on the ground in Syria as it bombs the radical group ISIS. That’s a potentially serious flaw in its strategy to ultimately defeat the militants.

Obama administration officials have long conceded that airstrikes alone won’t drive ISIS from its strongholds across Syria and Iraq, but it also has ruled out the use of American ground troops. The U.S. strategy to crush ISIS rests on the use of local proxy forces, and hinges on plans to use $500 million and a base in Saudi Arabia to build an army of moderate Syrian rebels.

The ground force component has always been seen as a challenge in Syria, but the difficulty has become clearer in recent days. Officials acknowledge that the U.S. doesn’t trust any Syrian rebel groups enough to coordinate on the air campaign, despite attempts by some pro-Western fighters to pass along intelligence about ISIS positions.

The CIA has secretly trained and is paying more than 1,000 moderates to help achieve the administration’s stated objective of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar Assad, U.S. officials have said. Those fighters have been gaining ground against Assad in southern Syria and in some places are fighting ISIS, said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria. The CIA-funded fighters have proven reliable and have made modest gains, said a congressional aide who has been briefed on the matter. The aide spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.

But some analysts have questioned the fighters’ loyalty and competence. Either way, it’s clear their impact has not been decisive.

“Most of these groups have worked closely with Jabhat al-Nusra at some point in the last year or so,” said Joshua Landis, the Arabic-speaking director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, referring to the head of Syria’s Al-Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front. “Some of them have worked hand in glove with ISIS. For Americans to call a sit-down and say ‘Here’s where we’re bombing’ doesn’t make any sense. We don’t trust these guys.”

American officials don’t go that far in public remarks, but they have been fairly blunt.

“We don’t have a willing, capable, effective partner on the ground inside Syria right now,” Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said last week. “It’s just a fact.”

John Allen, the retired Marine general in charge of coordinating the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS, said Wednesday that “at this point, there is no formal coordination with” the U.S.-backed moderate rebels known as the Free Syrian Army.

That approach has infuriated rebels, fueling mistrust on both sides. The commander of a moderate rebel brigade in the northern Aleppo province, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Thabet, called the U.S.-led airstrikes “pointless and self-serving.”

As Americans have bombed ISIS positions elsewhere, Syrian government forces have advanced in northern Aleppo province, Abu Thabet said. Moderate factions like his are trapped between ISIS fighters on one side and government forces on another, and the U.S. has not once hit ISIS along the 12-mile (19.3-kilometer) front it occupies against his group, he said.

Abu Thabet said rebels have tried to pass along information about ISIS positions to the U.S. military, but have received no response. “The Americans are kidding themselves,” he said. He then praised the Nusra Front – underscoring the sort of concerns that bedevil U.S. policymakers.

“I am surprised at how fractious and dis-unified the Syrian opposition has been,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a military strategy expert at the Brookings Institution. “They just haven’t managed to find a charismatic leader or a single rallying point.”

Part of the explanation, he and others said, rests with the decision by the Obama administration not to fund and equip the moderates three years ago, before the Nusra Front and ISIS grew in strength.

Allen said the U.S.-led coalition intends “to build a coherence to the Free Syrian Army elements that will give it the capacity and the credibility over time to be able to make its weight felt in the battlefield against [ISIS]. It’s going to require a build phase. It’s going to require a training and equipping phase.”

But critics question whether $500 million and several thousand fighters will be enough.

“I do not understand how 5,000 to 10,000 men are going to hold the eastern half of Syria,” said Ford, the former ambassador. “It looks woefully inadequate to me.”

O’Hanlon, the analyst, added that the numbers suggest the Obama strategy is “not that serious.”

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on October 18, 2014, on page 9.




Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)

comments powered by Disqus



Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here