Tonight, president Obama is expected to call for arming the Syrian rebels so that they can act as the ground troops in the battle against ISIS in that country. Remember, in Syria, the government is controlled by Bashir al Assad and his predominantly Shiite supporters. The largest rebel group fighting Assad is ISIS itself. Within the Sunni rebel opposition, however, there are some more moderate groups like the Syrian National Council which are the ones Obama now wants to arm.
It's worth keeping in mind that the Syrian National Council or SNC was the first group that rose to oppose the tyrannical rule of Assad. For years, as literally hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed or injured by the Assad forces, the SNC begged Obama and the USA for help, only to have the pleas be ignored by the president. After a while, the jihadi terrorists appeared among those fighting Assad and they quickly gained strength since they had strong material support from al Qaeda and states like Qatar. Eventually, ISIS began to fight not only Assad but also the SNC so that ISIS could claim sole control of the Sunni opposition. Today, the SNC controls the area around Aleppo, but most of the rest of the country is controlled by either Assad or ISIS. Indeed, at times the Assad and ISIS forces have joined together to attack the SNC.
Years ago, when the SNC was clearly the major player among the Sunnis, many in this country (including me) called for the arming of the SNC forces. President Obama ignored the issue. In fact, not all that long ago, Obama was asked by Tom Friedman of the New York Times about the wisdom of arming the SNC. Here is Obama's response as described by Friedman.
With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”
Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”
Tonight, Obama is going to call America to carry out this FANTASY. Will he admit that he was wrong? Will he tell us what led him to change his view that this strategy could not work? Will we even get an explanation in the background from the White House staff? Or will this be just another time when there is no logic to Obama or his statements?
Don't get me wrong. I want to arm the SNC. I wanted to arm the SNC two years ago. The problem today is that during those two years a big chunk of the SNC was destroyed because the group lacked proper arms. In other words, Obama thought arming the entire group was a fantasy that was doomed to failure. Now, he wants to arm the remnants of that group and tells us that it will succeed. We deserve to understand Obama's reasoning on this point (or the lack thereof.)
It's worth keeping in mind that the Syrian National Council or SNC was the first group that rose to oppose the tyrannical rule of Assad. For years, as literally hundreds of thousands of Syrians were killed or injured by the Assad forces, the SNC begged Obama and the USA for help, only to have the pleas be ignored by the president. After a while, the jihadi terrorists appeared among those fighting Assad and they quickly gained strength since they had strong material support from al Qaeda and states like Qatar. Eventually, ISIS began to fight not only Assad but also the SNC so that ISIS could claim sole control of the Sunni opposition. Today, the SNC controls the area around Aleppo, but most of the rest of the country is controlled by either Assad or ISIS. Indeed, at times the Assad and ISIS forces have joined together to attack the SNC.
Years ago, when the SNC was clearly the major player among the Sunnis, many in this country (including me) called for the arming of the SNC forces. President Obama ignored the issue. In fact, not all that long ago, Obama was asked by Tom Friedman of the New York Times about the wisdom of arming the SNC. Here is Obama's response as described by Friedman.
With “respect to Syria,” said the president, the notion that arming the rebels would have made a difference has “always been a fantasy. This idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth, and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, that was never in the cards.”
Even now, the president said, the administration has difficulty finding, training and arming a sufficient cadre of secular Syrian rebels: “There’s not as much capacity as you would hope.”
Tonight, Obama is going to call America to carry out this FANTASY. Will he admit that he was wrong? Will he tell us what led him to change his view that this strategy could not work? Will we even get an explanation in the background from the White House staff? Or will this be just another time when there is no logic to Obama or his statements?
Don't get me wrong. I want to arm the SNC. I wanted to arm the SNC two years ago. The problem today is that during those two years a big chunk of the SNC was destroyed because the group lacked proper arms. In other words, Obama thought arming the entire group was a fantasy that was doomed to failure. Now, he wants to arm the remnants of that group and tells us that it will succeed. We deserve to understand Obama's reasoning on this point (or the lack thereof.)
No comments:
Post a Comment