SyriaU.S. plan to train “moderate” Syrian rebels raises troubling questions
The U.S. reluctance to become decisively committed to the complex quagmire in Syria is understandable. However, its plan to insert a U.S.-trained-and-equipped “moderate rebel” force into the mix is deeply concerning — on several levels. While U.S. efforts to support rebel groups to date have been less than successful, there is so much that could go wrong with this course of action, and so little that could go right. There are no easy solutions to an issue as complex as Syria. The uncoordinated, short-term actions of some of the regional states have simply exacerbated what was already a hideously difficult operating environment. If there hasn’t been a military solution to the problem that has worked in the nearly four years of the conflict, then the introduction of another 15,000 armed rebels over several years, with an indistinct aim, is unlikely to do much more than further muddy the treacherous waters.
The U.S. reluctance to become decisively committed to the complex quagmire in Syria is understandable. However, its plan to insert a U.S.-trained-and-equipped “moderate rebel” force into the mix is deeply concerning — on several levels.
According to reports, the United States plans to deploy up to 1,000 military trainers and support personnel to the region to train moderate Syrian rebel forces.
While U.S. efforts to support rebel groups to date have been less than successful, there is so much that could go wrong with this course of action, and so little that could go right. Naturally, we only have access to the open source reporting on the plan, but from what we do know, there are many questions that demand answering.
What is a “moderate” rebel?
When I asked a senior Lebanese army officer in November 2014 if there were “moderate rebels” in Syria, he simply laughed — not at my joke, but at the concept.
The reality of training and equipping a rebel force is that whoever does so becomes responsible for their actions, both on the battlefield and off it. There are claims that the United States has “vetted” the thousands of rebels it is going to train. But the vetting process assumes perfect knowledge (which doesn’t exist) and also only checks that their transliterated names haven’t shown up on someone’s database as not being “moderate.”
It is vetting by exception, and says nothing about the present or future political, religious or societal outlook of the people the United States and its allies will be training and arming. Is it likely that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or Turkey will be supporting an armed organization that seeks the establishment of a secular, pluralist democracy in post-conflict Syria? Or is it more likely that they will be seeking an outcome more in line with their own Islamist political and societal views?
Does Washington care about promoting the former, or is it willing to aid and abet the latter — as long as it guarantees stability?
