Israel Matzav

Obama acts on Syria: Too little, too late?

After the outraged reaction to President Obama's admission that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons and that he still hadn't decided what to do about it, President Obama quickly backtracked on Thursday night and decided that he would help the Syrian rebels. But how will he help them? And is it too little too late?

Obama is proposing to provide the rebels with weapons (and there is talk about a no-fly zone, but so far that has not happened). The rebels are asking for heavy weapons.

The United States has said it would be “responsive to the needs” of the increasingly desperate rebels, but has not given details of what assistance will include. 

Initial consignments are expected to consist of small arms and ammunition, which the rebel Free Syrian Army said on Friday would be largely “meaningless”. 

...

U.S. officials are expected to meet with Gen. Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Supreme Military Council, over the next two days to discuss details of military assistance that Washington can provide. Rebel leaders said Idriss will urge the U.S. interlocutors to offer up a wide range of support.

“We welcome the decision, but it is a late step. And if they send small arms, how can small arms make a difference?” said Louay al-Mokdad, political and media coordinator for the Free Syria Army. “They should help us with real weapons, antitank and antiaircraft, and with armored vehicles, training and a no-fly zone.”

The White House has said it has not made any decision to pursue a no-fly zone, which would involve targeted airstrikes in order to remove air defenses, and could raise concerns of a mission creep. Charles Lister, an analyst at IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center, said that while a no-fly zone near the Jordanian border might be a “feasible eventuality” given the strong presence of moderate rebel groups in the area, sending anti-aircraft weapons to the rebels “still appears unlikely”.

Mokdad said it is essential that the United States “move fast” if it wants to have an impact on the trajectory of the 25-month-old conflict, which according to a new United Nations report so far has resulted in nearly 93,000 confirmed deaths.

But are weapons going to help at this point?  Let's call it doubtful.

Now that the moment for American action has come, it is very late in the day. The war in Syria is not just a humanitarian catastrophe—the U.N. said on Thursday that the death toll had reached ninety-three thousand. Worse, the Assad régime appears, after months of stalemate, to have gained the upper hand. This is almost certainly due to a large-scale intervention by Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, which has sent as many as two thousand fighters into Syria to save Assad. Hezbollah fighters were decisive in the pro-Assad force’s recent recapture of the city of Qusayr, which, in turn, is central to Hezbollah’s existence. Qusayr sits on the main road leading into Lebanon’s Beqaa Valley, Hezbollah’s stronghold, and serves as the main conduit for Iranian arms and missiles that have made Hezbollah the formidable armed group that it is. Hezbollah’s intervention has been accompanied by a massive, ceaseless airlift from the Iranian government, which regards Assad as its closest friend in the Arab world.

Just look at the map: Syria and Lebanon form part of the so-called “Shiite axis’’ that the Iranian régime has helped build and sustain over many years. Iran is majority Shiite, Hezbollah is almost entirely Shiite, and the Assad régime is dominated by Alawites, a Shiite sect that fears a genocide if they are defeated. Iran doesn’t want to lose that axis—not with the West breathing down its neck about its nuclear ambitions. And at every step, Assad has had the assistance of the Russian government of Vladimir Putin, who has been prepared to veto any attempt by the U.N. Security Council to approve an armed intervention.

What happens now? A lot depends on the details—on exactly what the White House proposes to do. The President can choose from a range of options, none of which would include putting American troops on the ground: a no-fly zone; air and missile strikes against Assad’s runways and airplanes; arms for the rebels. It appears that Obama has decided to take at least the modest step of sending small arms and ammunition to the rebels. For more than two years, the President has concluded that staying out of Syria is the best course. He appears to be changing his mind. The question now may be whether it’s too late.

Small arms aren't going to change this war. Heavy arms may not either. A no-fly zone sounds like it needs to be on the Lebanese border to the Bekaa to be effective - and no one is now talking about doing that. Has Obama missed the boat? It wouldn't be the first time.

Shabbat Shalom everyone.

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Bashar al-Assad, Bekaa Valley, Free Syrian Army, Hezbullah, Lebanon, Nusra Front, Russia, Syria, Syria no-fly zone, Syrian uprising, Vladimir Putin

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:11 PM