In Syria, in Search of Options, Any Options
Published in Veja
(Brazil) on 5 December 2013
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
(Brazil) on 5 December 2013
by Caio Blinder (link to original)
Translated from
by Jane Dorwart.
Edited by Bora Mici.
For some time now, the militias of analysts from the Blinder & Blainder Institute have been lost in their projections about Syria. For a while, they fired first and asked questions later. Now, they ask too many questions and offer too few answers. Let's do battle!
There is information that the Obama government, so reluctant to stick a hand in the Syrian muck, could finally be forced to take a more active role by targeting jihadi groups fighting the Assad regime, other rebel groups and even the moderates between them. This activism would be the product of the vigorous, yet fragmented jihadi threat in various parts of the Middle East, in an arc that goes from Mali to Yemen, and which obviously has a nerve point in Syria. European jihadis, who were fighting in Syria alongside Islamic groups, are now coming home and planning terrorist acts, after taking intensive courses.
With a certain delicacy, The New York Times observes that the price of countering the terrorist threat could be a certain "accommodation, even if just a temporary or tactical, with the brutal, but secular government of Assad" — the government that has committed war crimes, according to "massive evidence" released this week by United Nations investigators.
This American move will require domestic and international negotiations. In the foreground is an increasingly furious Saudi ally, furious with Washington and active in its support of various jihadi groups. In The New York Times, Ryan Crocker gets to the point. He says, "We need to start talking to the Assad regime again about counterterrorism," adding that, however bad the Syrian dictator is, he is not as bad as the jihadis, who would take over in his absence.
The Wall Street Journal has a slightly different angle, pointing out that Western countries rejected the idea of sending powerful weapons to the Islamist rebel groups, fearing they could fall into the hands of forces openly linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network. However, the paper says it is apparent the U.S. and its allies are talking directly with Islamist militias, while the Saudis are reinforcing and supplying arms to one of them, the Army of Islam.
There are internal debates in Western capitals over the advantage of courting these groups, but there is an inclination to support a new coalition of religious militias, under the name Islamic Front, which excludes groups directly linked to the al-Qaida network, including the al-Nusra Front, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In the estimates of Western intelligence, this new coalition represents half the rebels fighting the Assad regime. The moderates of the Free Syria Army lost much land and influence this year.
In this confusion, it is clear that Western countries have failed in the mission to unite rebel factions under the command of moderate and secular forces since the beginning of the civil war in 2011, during which various military victories and solid support from Russia, Iran and the Shiite militia, Hezbollah encouraged the Syrian regime. What persists in the Syrian scenario is a paucity of good options. In seeking to make up for lost time, Western countries are now grabbing at any option.
There is information that the Obama government, so reluctant to stick a hand in the Syrian muck, could finally be forced to take a more active role by targeting jihadi groups fighting the Assad regime, other rebel groups and even the moderates between them. This activism would be the product of the vigorous, yet fragmented jihadi threat in various parts of the Middle East, in an arc that goes from Mali to Yemen, and which obviously has a nerve point in Syria. European jihadis, who were fighting in Syria alongside Islamic groups, are now coming home and planning terrorist acts, after taking intensive courses.
With a certain delicacy, The New York Times observes that the price of countering the terrorist threat could be a certain "accommodation, even if just a temporary or tactical, with the brutal, but secular government of Assad" — the government that has committed war crimes, according to "massive evidence" released this week by United Nations investigators.
This American move will require domestic and international negotiations. In the foreground is an increasingly furious Saudi ally, furious with Washington and active in its support of various jihadi groups. In The New York Times, Ryan Crocker gets to the point. He says, "We need to start talking to the Assad regime again about counterterrorism," adding that, however bad the Syrian dictator is, he is not as bad as the jihadis, who would take over in his absence.
The Wall Street Journal has a slightly different angle, pointing out that Western countries rejected the idea of sending powerful weapons to the Islamist rebel groups, fearing they could fall into the hands of forces openly linked to the al-Qaida terrorist network. However, the paper says it is apparent the U.S. and its allies are talking directly with Islamist militias, while the Saudis are reinforcing and supplying arms to one of them, the Army of Islam.
There are internal debates in Western capitals over the advantage of courting these groups, but there is an inclination to support a new coalition of religious militias, under the name Islamic Front, which excludes groups directly linked to the al-Qaida network, including the al-Nusra Front, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. In the estimates of Western intelligence, this new coalition represents half the rebels fighting the Assad regime. The moderates of the Free Syria Army lost much land and influence this year.
In this confusion, it is clear that Western countries have failed in the mission to unite rebel factions under the command of moderate and secular forces since the beginning of the civil war in 2011, during which various military victories and solid support from Russia, Iran and the Shiite militia, Hezbollah encouraged the Syrian regime. What persists in the Syrian scenario is a paucity of good options. In seeking to make up for lost time, Western countries are now grabbing at any option.