WarSclerotic

Obama’s decision to arm Syrian rebels is too little, too late – Middle East – Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper.

Soon, Washington will need to decide whether to order a Libya-style NATO intervention or let Syria bleed to death and figure out where Iran, with a new president, fits into the picture.

Members of a rebel group called Martyr Al-Abbas discuss tactical plans in Aleppo. Photo by Reuters

What kind of weapons will the rebels receive, and when? This is the question that troubles rebel military leaders in Syria after hearing that U.S. President Barack Obama intends to expand military aid to Syrian rebels in terms of scope and quality. The American decision may have come after sitting on the fence for too long, and was ultimately justified based on reports that between 15-100 people were killed by chemical weapon attacks.

Even though the Americans perhaps waited too long, the decision is of great political importance. For the first time the United States is willing to confront the Russians and become directly involved in the war in Syria, even without international consensus within the United Nations. This is also declaration that the American administration has decided to bring down the Assad regime, and not to wait for the planned conference in Geneva to re-examine the possibility for diplomatic negotiations, even if the U.S. still hasn’t said so explicitly.

However, from the perspective of the rebels the practical question is the pressing one. According to White House leaks, the administration doesn’t intend to send the rebels heavy weaponry, or anti-aircraft missiles, which are crucial for attacking Assad’s planes. Instead, the U.S. will send light arms, ammunition and anti-tank missiles. This type of weaponry won’t be decisive in the war and at most will grant the rebels better defensive capabilities. The rebels hoped that the administration will expand upon its decision so that it includes no fly zones, either in northern or southern Syria, and pave the way for the intervention of the U.S. Air Force, and perhaps the air forces of European Union nations.

However, a step like this requires international approval at the United Nations, which has no chance at the moment due to Russia and China’s stances on the matter. Russia has already warned the U.S. not to make the same mistake it did in Iraq, but this warning is superfluous at best. The American administration still isn’t willing to fight by itself to defend Syrian civilians or to implement a no-fly zone that will likely lead to confrontation with Syrian, and possibly Russian, planes.

Assad’s forces, preparing to conquer Aleppo after their victory in the city of Al-Qusair can in the meantime continue attacking from the air without any foreign or domestic threat. The concentration of military efforts on Aleppo and the battle for Syria’s largest city do not resemble the battle for Al-Qusair. Aleppo will demand a prolonged, two pronged approach, first, the softening of defenses followed by drawn out urban combat. However, if the Syria army succeeds in returning the city to Assad’s control, it will likely become the strategic downfall of the rebels. In such a scenario, the rebellion will likely collapse and transform into a series of localized guerrilla battles that will probably levy a heavy toll in blood, ultimately far eclipsing the current horrifying statistic of 100,000 dead.

Western countries aren’t unfamiliar with this scenario. Some of them, particularly the United Kingdom and France, already asked several months ago that weapons be sent to the rebels but were given a cold shoulder by the U.S.

Now it appears that after the American decision to send weapons to the rebels, Washington will be required in the near future to make a more important decision to determine if Western armies will again carry out a Libya-style exercise, in which NATO forces attacked the Libyan army and then Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi’s palace. The alternative is letting Syria bleed to death. This kind of decision will need to take into account the regional ramifications and not just Russia’s response. The West, awaiting the results of the elections in Iran and hopes to renew negotiations with the new regime in a different atmosphere, may need to decide if it prefers a non-nuclear Iran with an Assad-led Syria over a rebel-led government of unknown character alongside a belligerent Iran.

This entry was posted on June 15, 2013 at 3:28 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.