USA Go Home: ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Now Opposing US Airstrikes In Syria

[kpete]

‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Now Opposing US Airstrikes In Syria
By: DSWright Thursday October 2, 2014 5:54 am

Richard Engel ✔ @RichardEngel
Syrian activists telling us theyve never heard of Khorasan or its leader
10:32 AM - 24 Sep 2014
https://twitter.com/RichardEngel/status/514829810015547392

In an ironic twist to the ongoing and controversial US bombing campaign in Syria, the so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels are telling the Western media that they too oppose US airstrikes in Syria and think the campaign will do more harm than good for their cause. The US-led bombing campaign recently hit grain silos and killed food workers making a bad situation worse and reminding many that US intervention in the Middle East rarely leads to anything other than increased suffering for everyone.

Now members of the Free Syrian Army have told Foreign Policy that they want Washington to send its planes back home. Fighters and commanders in the FSA told FP that the US airstrikes were just providing political capital for ISIS and other Islamic groups that opposed the moderate rebels. ISIS could point to strikes on civilians as evidence that the US was a wicked power and that ISIS’ jihad was just. The FSA rebels also feared the airstrikes would strengthen the Assad government.

America’s most plausible allies on the ground in Deir Ezzor, however, remain critical of the international effort. Foreign Policy interviewed six FSA commanders from the province who are currently exiled by the Islamic State and hiding out in southeastern Turkey. All of them were arrested at some point by the jihadist group; some were tortured. They all agree that the U.S. airstrikes in their home country are a bad idea.

FSA fighters and commanders complained to Foreign Policy that they have received no increase in support since the international effort to combat the Islamic State began, despite promises from the Obama administration that the United States would begin supplying arms to the rebels. The FSA fighters also disparaged the airstrikes, saying they would mainly kill civilians and give the Assad regime a chance to gain ground.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/10/01/too_many_too_late_syria_rebels_oppose_airstrikes?utm_content=buffer5499e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Does anyone outside the White House support these airstrikes at this point? Given that ISIS is active in such a large area it is going to be pretty hard to “degrade and destroy” them without taking a lot of civilians with them. In other words, even if the air campaign is successful it’s going to create a lot of enemies and radicals.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/10/02/moderate-syrian-rebels-now-opposing-us-airstrikes-in-syria/

[atreides1]

1. I'm surprised.

NOT....

It's all about that "collateral" damage definition...

[Baclava]

2. Air strikes on Syria: A long and uncertain shot

With ISIL moving towards urban warfare, serious questions regarding the efficacy of the US-led strategy remain.

The new US engagement, together with its key Arab partners, among them Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Jordan, represents a marked departure from the Obama administration's previous reluctance to get entangled in Syria's killing fields in the first place. Obama may have fired the first shot, but his successor will have to see the campaign through, as this strategy will not yield results for at least a few years - if ever. Without doubt, the air strikes will devolve into something much bigger over time.

A bottom-up approach must complement the top-down strategy pursued by the US and its allies. This involves working with local communities in Iraq and Syria, particularly the Sunnis who feel persecuted and excluded from the political and social space, and giving them a stake in the future in order to have them turn against ISIL and other extremists. Again, this is easier said than done.

The greater and more urgent task is to help rebuild fragile state institutions in the region and improve dismal socio-economic conditions which provide a fertile soil for nihilistic groups like ISIL.

Another pre-condition is to end the regional war-by-proxy between Sunni-dominated Saudi Arabia and Shia-dominated Iran which inflames sectarian tensions and supplies nourishment for ISIL. A grand bargain is needed whereby Iran and Russia are engaged and brought into this coalition. The prospects of this grand bargain are minimal.

Among so many unknown variables, ISIL will not simply wait passively. The group is adapting to new challenges, demonstrating tactical adjustments as well as consolidating control over major cities and provinces. It now governs over the lives of eight million Iraqis and Syrians. In a way, it has eight million hostages, a potentially frightening calamity.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/09/air-strikes-syria-long-uncertai-201492462044683657.html

[KurtNYC]

3. We can Bomb the World to Pieces but We Can't Bomb It into Peace

[seveneyes]

4. So say the moderate religious extremists

You mean praying all day and night plus their religious extremism has not fixed all their problems yet?

More science and less ignorance is needed.

[TwilightGardener]

5. We're not doing airstrikes FOR THEM. We're doing airstrikes to keep ISIS from

being able to cross back and forth into Iraq (and to kill other AQ that have taken up residence in Syria). The moderate rebels don't seem to care much about ISIS, they're 100% fixated on Assad, anyway.