Congress and White House One Step Behind on Syria Rebels

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:14:00 AM EST
Tags: ISIS, Syria (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The White House is pushing Congress to vote on on arming the "moderate" Syrian rebels. Repubicans are getting on board, and a vote may happen Tuesday.

If it’s not the Syrian opposition, trained and equipped by the United States, authorized by Congress and the president … then it’ll have to be U.S. troops,” White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told “Fox News Sunday.” “The president made a decision on that. We’re not going to do that.” The GOP-led House appears most ready to approve the plan.

Do they read the news? Colonel Riad al-Asaad, the leader of the Free Syrian Army, in interviews yesterday said the group will not join the U.S. in its fight against ISIS unless it receives assurance the U.S. will also take out Syrian President Assad. More here. [More...]

When factoring in the other problems that come with arming Syrian rebels, the answer seems obvious: Do not arm Syrian rebels. As to boots on the ground, the answer should still be "no." Let the Middle Eastern countries sort it out. Our aid should be limited to an advisory position and providing technological assistance and training the Iraqi army.

These rebels don't care about ISIS, they care about overthrowing Assad. They are happy to fight alongside hardline jihadist groups like Jabhat al Nusra when it suits them. Jabhat al Nusra is an affiliate of al Qaida. The Khurasan group in Syria that the AP reported yesterday wants to attack the U.S. has been part of JAN. Why would we arm a group that still has a qasi-working relationship with a terrorist group?

JAN today issued a statement that anyone who helps the U.S. will be considered an apostate (the punishment for which is death.) Suqour al-Sham / Islamic Front commander Abu Ammar (that also fights ISIS) today issued a statement opposing U.S. intervention in Syria and saying Syria cannot withstand another proxy war. (Arabic here, translation here.)

U.S. contractors, meanwhile, are chomping at the bit awaiting their good fortune if the U.S. gets involved. They will pocket oodles of money.

We stuck our toe in the water with the airstrikes and should leave it at that. Not only might it take the target off our back caused by the strikes, but it will be a firm statement that Iraq and Syria are not our problem to solve when there are plenty of countries in the Middle East who stand in a much riskier position than we do and also have the bucks to fight ISIS.

It was the correct decision not to to use our military might to topple Assad last year. Not arming the rebels now, given their mistrust and their different goals, should be a no-brainer.

< Move Over ISIS, The Khorasan Are Waiting in the Wings | Monday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Congress and White House One Step Behind on Syria Rebels | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Free Syrian Army??? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Uncle Chip on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:31:42 AM EST

The White House is pushing Congress to vote on on arming the "moderate" Syrian rebels.

I'm a little confused here???

Every time I listen to Richard Engel on NBC he says that there is no such thing as a Free Syrian Army aka Moderate Syrian Rebels.

There is merely ISIS with its dozen or so military branches and the Syrian government army.

But I'm sure that ISIL leaders are now more than willing to form one, and even have them call themselves the Free Syrian Army, or whatever the White House wants to call it, as long as the US is now willing to arm it.

Are we fools or what???

If we arm the ISIL Free Syrian Army (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 11:43:20 AM EST

we are indeed fools.


The FSA does exist (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 12:19:47 PM EST

It has been fighting ISIS, it is not part of ISIS. JAN (al Nusra) and ISIS were the ones who were together and are now in a spat. The FSA was weaker a year ago when the issue first came up about arming them. But if your point is that all of these groups can work alongside each other when the situation is mutually beneficial, I think that's correct.


: Then we agree (1.00 / 1) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 02:29:13 PM EST

These groups will join together when it is to their benefit.
That means we don't arm or help any of them.
And I have no solution beyond working with the Kurds and the Iraqi army and using Special Forces to direct intense bombing raids where needed. And that includes Syria. No safe havens.

Yeah why does Engel (none / 0) (#27)
by TH71 on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 11:36:59 PM EST

keep saying that? I've been busy this past week and I'm just catching bits and pieces right now so I wondered if I was missing something.

I also caught that news about the FSA stating they will not be joining the coalition, so there must be some miscommunication happening with the White House, or maybe the WH is hoping for a change of heart?


I've got an idea. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by NYShooter on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:18:36 AM EST

Why don't we come out from behind the bushes, put our pea shooters away, cancel the snark contest, and, try to, intelligently, analyze the rapidly changing situation in the M.E, and debate/discuss what realistic options are available to the U.S.

A couple of months ago most of us hadn't heard of this group, ISIS/ISIL. The simple fact that they've been able to capture/dominate half of Iraq, and, a third of Syria in such a short time means they're a serious player in the region, and, ignoring them is just untenable.

I disagree with Jeralyn, just slightly, as to what sort of danger they represent to us at this moment. While I agree that they're not considering engaging us now, and, even possibly, never, hoping that they won't come after us in the future is not a strategy a superpower should adopt.

The President has an unbelievably complicated, and, difficult strategic development facing him. I don't see any steps he could be making other than the slow, methodical ones he seems to have adopted. All the moves have to be made simultaneously: militarily, politically, intelligence gathering, and, smart, coordinated, planning.

I have not been an Obama "Fan boy".....ever. But, I think, this late in his administration, he may, finally, be getting the hang of "Presidenting." He's not facing WW2, a "simple war." And, after Viet Nam, the disastrous Reagan years, and, the, arguably worst Administration in history with Bush 2, I'm liking what I've seen so far in Obama's handling of the Middle East Snake Pit.

Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by KeysDan on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:42:41 AM EST

I believe the Administration should come out from behind the bushes, put the pea shooters away and cancel the snark contest for those who see a creeping quagmire. It would be well too, for the Administration to try to intelligently analyze the rapidly changing situation in the middle east, and debate and discuss what realistic options are available to the U. S.

in addition to engaging the citizenry with other than one major ambiguous speech suggesting a "three year war", a debate would be nice--in the Congress and with hearings. Using AUMF 200l (9/ll) and AUMF 2001 (get Saddam before he gets us, mushroom cloud etc), is at best, a stretch that is subject to the only tool available to those who have tried to intelligently evaluate the pros and cons--ridicule and pea shooters.

The only voices being heard are the usual war mongers. Syrian moderates? Really which ones, there are about 1500 such groups. Will this support Assad? Have we, in fact, changed our real position on him? Will the Arab countries provide some of those boots, or just some airstrikes by trusted pilots? This is an opportunity to set the stage to work with Iran, but this, obvious and basic consideration, is ruled out because--well it is Iran. Is all this just to "do something," to calm down the hyperventilating of terrorists coming to Topeka?

I used to feel that the best advice for young people is to enter a career in weather, since it was the only job in which you could make so many mistakes and still keep your job. But, I would add to my advice, a career as a proponent of war as the answer to middle east problems.


This is not true (none / 0) (#28)
by Militarytracy on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 01:28:32 PM EST

They are listening to the people right now too. The majority of Americans wants this administration to do something about ISIL.

A real debate is not taking place though because the majority is scared and when the majority is frightened they don't mind going at things fact free.

Congress won't even vote on this because Republicans don't want to be the record empowering the black guy and Democrats don't want to be on the record signing us up for at least some kind of three year commitment.

The citizenry is engaging though, and they want the President to do something.


: It seems, to me, that (none / 0) (#29)
by KeysDan on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 05:14:33 PM EST

our thoughts are not in major conflict, the commonality being that the war mongering voices are having sway and many (maybe a majority,depending when the temperature is taken-and where, higher rectally than orally) want the Administration "to do something."
And, it is agreed that a real debate is not taking place. I am not sure, however, which group is most scared: the citizenry, the congress or the administration. The citizenry has been ill-served by the likes of Miss Lindsey who hysterically shrieks that we need to do something "or we will all be killed." The Republicans in congress are always up for war, and the Democrats find their voices, if they do, in delayed replay.
The Administration was, in my view, on the right track until being battered--don't do stupid stuff was and, is, a good organizing principle.
The citizenry can sign on to, as Jon Stewart proposes, "The Mandatory Night Light Act of 2014," or be given the straight story. Leadership is needed to put threats in perspective and actions in proportion.
ISIS is a wealthy terrorist group, but it is not a wealthy nation---how durable is a resource base of Bonnie and Clyde bank heists, stolen oil fenced on the black market, ransomed victims, and dependence on potable Sunni waters in which these jihadist Sunnis can swim.
Or a military campaign of about 15,000 fighters without an air force or navy. US armaments given to, or taken from the Iraqi army or obtained directly or indirectly through "moderates." we supplied. The bulwark is Toyota pick-up trucks. There "strength" is in decapitation not capitalization. Deadly, against fleeing armies, intimidating to the ambivalent and welcoming to disenfranchised Sunnis and those anti-Shite/Alawites.
Yes, the Republicans would like a stealth involvement and are plotting to finance aid to Syrian rebel groups as an amendment to the spending bill, just folding it in, with the voting choice being to include the Syrian aid or shut down the government.
If we need "to do something," convince the Saudi and other Sunni religious leaders to publicly condemn beheadings and kidnapping as un-Islamic, cut off ISIS flow of cash by cracking down on dealers who buy ISIS oil on the black market, and attempt to stem the cross-border flow of arms.
If the US ambles into another major military conflict in the middle east without realistically defined objectives and a workable plan to achieve them, we will have failed at the get go, once again.

We don't need to be there... (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by desertswine on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:16:39 PM EST

This is just a cash cow for corporations who make billions of dollars selling death. We should be giving people dental care, or better schools, or any one of a thousand things that people need.

Anybody else think it possible that (none / 0) (#3)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:38:22 AM EST

McCain and Graham are talking to their favorite "moderates" and telling them what to hold out for, namely the McGraham approach to Syria?

Graham is demanding combat boots (5.00 / 5) (#5)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 07:54:34 AM EST

To be sent back into Iraq. I personally think the situation needs two sets of combat boots in Iraq - Graham's and McCain's.


Fox News needs to be their (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:18:09 AM EST

Logistics as well....their tiny cat's paws :)


: I'll vote for that (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:32:43 AM EST

Maybe Hannity could become part of that group and enlist Limpball and Beck.

Could we just send (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:46:46 AM EST

A truck load of boots?


Or Better Yet (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by squeaky on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:55:18 AM EST

Considering that we are in poststructuralist and postmodern times, metonym is all that is needed, physical reality is passé.

Just send text, Boots On The Ground... 10Million or so.

that should do it.

And if we really want to get fancy, send it in Arabic as well.


: Tropes, not Troops (none / 0) (#13)
by Mr Natural on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:18:22 AM EST

Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:10:17 AM EST

Someone should start a nationwide drive for " boots for the Middle East "

Collect a million or so and ship them over, put them on the ground. Bada bing.
Everybody's happy.


Someone should deliver a truckload of (5.00 / 3) (#15)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 09:34:04 AM EST

Boots to The Senate floor for Graham.


Collect boots from soldiers disabled from (5.00 / 4) (#20)
by ruffian on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 02:08:42 PM EST

the 12 years of combat operations already endured. That would be a powerful statement.


: A very powerful statement (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by MO Blue on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 02:40:41 PM EST

The best suggestion yet.

Back in 2007, there was a roving exhibit (none / 0) (#30)
by Mr Natural on Tue Sep 16, 2014 at 09:49:35 PM EST

of combat boots, one pair for each American who died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When I saw it, there were a lot of boots. Since then the exhibit has apparently been broken down by state and distributed to local groups.


"Do they read the news? " (none / 0) (#4)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 07:02:32 AM EST

Of course they don't.
Reality doesn't matter.

By the way, ain't these "moderates", our pals, our buddies, the ones who sold Steven Sotloff to ISIS?

Great.
Let's give them money, weapons and training.

What a farce.

A deadly farce.

OMG..the President is not sending (none / 0) (#7)
by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 08:25:02 AM EST

Bumbling muderous freakouts like Academi LLC. Why do faux journalists make this stuff up, and then why do other goofballs bite off on it?

This President has never been that sort of idiot, just falsely accused over and over and over again.

As astounding bit from B.O. (none / 0) (#17)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 10:43:21 AM EST

"As Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead."

Why in the world is it "our responsibility"?
And who "welcomes" this responsibility?
You? Me?
Obama?
McCain?
"Welcome" it?

What is the world is he talking about?

And who is the "our"in "our responsibility"?
The American taxpayer?

Have we been consulted - except by suspect polling organizations to tell us that we are fine with whatever they want us to be fine with?

It's not our responsibility.

It is the responsibility of the people in the region.

They could, if they were foolish enough, ask us to join some coalition they are eagerly forming. Not the other way around.

And, if the "people in the region" (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by NYShooter on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 03:57:42 PM EST

are, simply, too weak to defend themselves?


: Leaving aside (none / 0) (#24)
by lentinel on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 04:46:53 PM EST

States in the region that have loads of cash, like Saudi Arabia...
What the thrust of my comment was meant to convey is that Obama is speaking as if he were monarch. It's like W. redux.
He does not have a right to say that we, the people, "welcome" our "responsibility" to "lead".
He does not have a right to say that it is "our" responsibility.
Neither is it appropriate to say that it is "our" role to "lead".
Gag.
I agree with Jeralyn's assessment:

We stuck our toe in the water with the airstrikes and should leave it at that. Not only might it take the target off our back caused by the strikes, but it will be a firm statement that Iraq and Syria are not our problem to solve when there are plenty of countries in the Middle East who stand in a much riskier position than we do and also have the bucks to fight ISIS.
It was the correct decision not to to use our military might to topple Assad last year. Not arming the rebels now, given their mistrust and their different goals, should be a no-brainer.
I also agree with her statement:

When factoring in the other problems that come with arming Syrian rebels, the answer seems obvious: Do not arm Syrian rebels. As to boots on the ground, the answer should still be "no." Let the Middle Eastern countries sort it out. Our aid should be limited to an advisory position and providing technological assistance and training the Iraqi army.

Our function should be to aid, if we know what and whom we are "aiding" - certainly not the "rebels" who sold Steven Stoloff to ISIS.
The administration seems absolutely clueless to me.
And if it is not clueless, it has some agenda that it is not sharing with us.

rebels aren't dumb (none / 0) (#25)
by thomas rogan on Mon Sep 15, 2014 at 06:12:08 PM EST

Why should the rebels throw their lives away in a proxy war for the Americans when what they have been sacrificing their lives for has been to overthrow Assad? Especially when the Americans will just discard them when it is convenient.
The rebels have zero loyality and trust to an American president who drew false red lines. And who can blame them?