|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
Islamic State group. 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 IS 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
IS 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 IS 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 IS, 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 Jabat 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-Qaida spinoff. "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 the Islamic State group, told reporters Wednesday that "at this
point, there is not 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 IS positions elsewhere, Syrian government forces have
advanced in northern Aleppo province, Abu Thabet said. Moderate factions
like his are trapped between IS fighters on one side and government
forces on another, and the U.S. has not once hit IS along the 12-mile
front it occupies against his group, he said.
Abu
Thabet said rebels have tried to pass along information about IS
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 disunified 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 Nusra and IS 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
ISIL. 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."
Rep.
Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican and former Army officer who serves on
the House intelligence committee, said he heard during a just-concluded
trip to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey a widespread "fear that
the Americans' stated objectives aren't consistent with our actions to
date."
Pompeo, Ford, O'Hanlon and many other
observers believe that the Obama administration ultimately will have to
take tougher action against the Assad government, perhaps including a
no-fly zone, to induce Syrian Sunni Arabs to fight IS. Carl Levin, the
Michigan democrat who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, called
on Thursday for a no-fly zone and a buffer zone to protect civilians.
The Syrian foreign ministry said Thursday it was "ferociously opposed"
to any such measures.
"We need a no-fly zone," Pompeo said, "because each time (the moderates) begin to make some progress, they get barrel bombed."
---
No comments:
Post a Comment