US: Who Shall We Buy in Syria?

Once again things backfired. Many analysts issued warnings, but sometimes I ask myself how it is possible that with the United States having so many think tanks dedicated to the study of the Middle East, the White House still makes mistakes in that region. It was to be expected that terrorist groups, after receiving financing from Washington and Arab countries in the Persian Gulf to overthrow the Syrian government by force, would be out of control and ignoring their sponsors.

Therefore, Washington and London decided to suspend their aid to the Free Syrian Army (FSA), but only in the country in conflict’s north after a radical group, the Islamic Front, attacked FSA arsenals on the border with Turkey and seized anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons.

The attitude of the foreign powers, fundamentally the U.S., is due to the fear that the war material may fall into the hands of jihadi groups, something they say they have tried to avoid since the start of the conflict, identifying moderate elements to whom they could offer their assistance.

Everybody knew that those groups were there, that they arrived from Iraq, Libya, Turkey, the Persian Gulf and other parts of the world, Western countries included, but they did not care because they served their interests and their goal of regime change.

They gave them weapons, money, political and diplomatic support, but now some of the financial backers seem to have become convinced that if they keep betting on the war, the situation could get out of hand. Many even consider that it would be preferable to have a transition led by the current government if a trustworthy ally cannot be found rather than allowing it to succumb to Islamic extremism, which could be counterproductive for Western interests.

Nevertheless, Washington and London have not abandoned their objective to overthrow Bashar Assad’s government. And if they now say they are counting on a political solution to the conflict through the Geneva II negotiations, as the international peace conference promoted by Russia and the U.S. is called, it is only because the Obama administration wants to negotiate an agreement that will lead to Assad’s exit.

Furthermore, the announced halt in military aid is only temporary. The FSA will continue to receive assistance in other parts of Syria, and for now it is trying to convince Washington and London that the weekend’s events were a “misunderstanding” and that the decision to leave them without supplies is hasty and mistaken, and therefore, they ask for more time until “things [are] clearer.”

That way the FSA plays down its disputes with the Islamic Front and alleges that there was no attack on its part over the weekend, but a “support” action that it had requested to defend its bases against the group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which together with the al-Nusra Front is linked to al-Qaida.

However, what is clear is that this past Dec. 3 the Islamic Front announced it was quitting the FSA Supreme Military Command, arguing it no longer represented them.

The FSA does not want to lose Western support, but they also know that when they have made progress in the war against Damascus it has been thanks to the influx of terrorist groups.

Washington is worried mainly by the loss of strength in what it calls the moderate opposition — also armed — against the push by jihadis and the rumors about the flight out of the country of the head of the FSA Supreme Military Command, General Salim Idris, also put it on alert because if it is true, it means it is slowly running out of chips to present and legitimize as counterparts to Assad.

And thus Geveva II is approaching, but its obstacles have yet to be cleared.