Two Syrian women walk down to the river bank as rebel
fighters load their belongings onto a boat to cross the Orontes river to Turkey
near the northern Syrian town of Darkush on 14 December 2012. (Photo: Odd
Andersen)
In an effort to sideline jihadi Islamists, the US wants to centralize
the armed opposition in Syria under a single military command. Will the armed
opposition’s internal divisions and foreign backers permit such an
endeavor?
Amidst the Syrian opposition’s meetings in Doha and Marrakesh, the finishing
touches were placed on an international effort to unite many of Syria’s armed
rebel groups under one leadership.
It was clear from the Doha meeting that Washington would not recognize the
newly formed opposition National Coalition (NC) until it proved itself capable
of forming a united military command for the armed factions operating in
Syria.
Washington maintained that the jihadis – which it estimated to constitute a
third of the armed groups – would be kept out, while the other two-thirds would
be integrated under a central military command that is accountable to the
NC.
Sure enough, a supreme military council of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) was
formed, comprising many of the factions engaged in the armed uprising under the
leadership of Salim Idriss. Among those excluded was the hardline Islamist
al-Nasra Front, which Washington recently placed on its list of terrorist
organizations.
On paper at least, it seems that the opposition succeeded in removing two key
obstacles to Western military assistance: the infiltration of al-Qaeda elements,
and the wayward and sometimes criminal behavior of some factions due to a lack
of accountability and discipline.
Chances of Success
Will Washington’s plan succeed? The answer to this question lies in examining
how these groups operate on the ground, their composition, and how they relate
to one another.
The first observation that must be made in this context is that the
fragmentation of the armed opposition is not simply due the various groups’
inability to work together within a unified structure. Ideological, political,
and personal differences have played a role in keeping them apart, even amongst
Washington’s “two-thirds.”
ne of the big challenges that the US faced, for example, was the personal
differences and intense competition among those officers who defected from the
Syrian army and formed rebel groups under their command.
Excluding the likes of Riad al-Asaad and Mustafa al-Sheikh from the new
military command is but a step in this direction.
First Defectors
Those officers who defected early in the Syrian uprising played a key role in
transforming the initial, largely peaceful, protests into a full-scale military
confrontation.
The first signs of an armed opposition appeared when provincial revolutionary
councils, particularly in Deraa, Homs, and Idlib, organized armed groups whose
mission was to protect peaceful protesters against government security forces.
Abdul-Razzaq Tlas was among the very first officers to initiate this type of
armed group in Homs, called the Farouq Brigade. Others soon followed, but not
necessarily under the leadership of officers who defected.
The armed groups multiplied and took a quantitative leap forward, prompting
Riad al-Asaad to defect and form the FSA, which became a broad label under which
much of the armed activity was conducted for quite some time. This development
in turn attracted financial and military support for the increasing number of
armed factions operating in the country.
Over time, many local commanders became disillusioned with the FSA
leadership, accusing it of being disconnected from the internal front and
monopolizing the financial and military support the armed opposition was
receiving.
The most prominent expression of this discontent was the formation of an
independent group called the Military Council of Homs and Countryside by Qassim
Saadeddine, under which he managed to bring together many of the armed factions
operating in the area.
Similar military councils soon emerged in many of the key cities and
Saadeddine was chosen to become the supreme commander of the internal Free
Syrian Army. The sidelining of Asaad in the new line-up is in many ways a
continuation of Saadeddine’s revolt.
It will be interesting to see how the likes of Saadeddine and Tlas will react
to the new leadership, particularly as the latter feels that he deserves a spot
in the new command given that he was among the first to defect and has since
fought on the ground in Syria, while others directed their battles from
neighboring countries.
Foreign Spheres of Influence
Another factor that will determine the fate of the newly formed military command
is the extent to which various countries who have carved out their own spheres
of influence among the various armed groups are willing to relinquish control to
a centralized leadership.
In other words, are those countries who are funding and arming the opposition
– such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, France, and Germany – ready to concede
their stake in the armed opposition to Washington, which appears to dominate the
military council?
A number of Western and Arab countries have gained political influence in
various parts of Syria through financially and militarily supporting the armed
groups that operate in each area.
Germany, for example, has sway in the Kurdish areas in the northeast of the
country, while the Deir Ezzor governorate, parts of Latakia, and the west of
Qamishli and al-Hasaka are controlled by Salafi groups backed by Turkey, Libya,
and some of the Gulf countries.
The coming days will reveal if these countries will encourage reluctant local
commanders, many of whom have been left out of the new leadership, to throw
their weight behind the National Coalition’s military command.
They may very well pay lip service to the idea of a unified military
leadership without modifying their control in order to protect their interests
in any final resolution to the Syrian crisis.
This article is an edited translation from the Arabic
Edition.
Spain’s Two Cents
Former Spanish air force officer Luis Munar, who has travelled to Syria on at
least two occasions to train fighters there, denied in an interview with AFP
that he was a mercenary.
He insisted that he decided to go to the battle-torn country because “he
couldn’t bear another day of seeing children being killed without a response,”
the press agency reported.
At the same time, he admitted that it was also a work opportunity that both
enriches his professional experience and allows him to provide for his
family.
He said that he self-financed his first trip to the country that took him to
Idlib and Aleppo, only to return a second time backed by an international
network of Syrian businessmen who opened a channel between him and the
12,000-strong Farouq Brigade.
“I am proud to say that all those that I trained are still alive,” Munar
declared. “Only two fighters were lightly injured in an engagement with the
special forces.”
During his first visit last November, he claimed that he trained young
fighters “on Kalashnikovs and direct combat, most of whom have never carried a
pistol before in their lives.”
(AFP)
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
No comments:
Post a Comment