Senate Foreign Relations Committee Approves Military Support for Rebels

Of particular interest in "Iran and Hezbollah Support for Syria Complicates Peace-Talk Strategy," by Michael Gordon and Steven Lee Myers, is the news that Iranian and Iraqi paramilitaries are fighting alongside Hezbollah with the Syrian army:

According to American intelligence reports, there are some 200 Iranian paramilitary Quds Force personnel in Syria. Qassim Suleimani, the Quds Force commander, recently ordered Iranian artillery and armor officials to help Mr. Assad’s regime, American officials say.

And Mr. Suleimani has also requested that several hundreds fighters from Asaib al-Haq and Kataib Hezbollah, two Iraqi Shiite militias that have been trained by the Iranians, join the war effort in Syria, according to officials familiar with the intelligence assessments. Iran is heavily involved in training thousands of members of Mr. Assad’s militia, the Jaish al-Sha’bi, including in Iran.

Therefore it is likely that there are Western "advisers" on the ground with the rebels. Imagine U.S. Special Forces fighting alongside Al Nusra Front jihadists. Whence GWOT? The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted yesterday to supply weapons to the rebels:

In Washington, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Mr. Kerry was chairman before becoming secretary of state, voted on Tuesday to approve legislation that would authorize expanded assistance to the rebels in Syria, including weapons. 

“I think all of us understand the risks that come with this type of legislation,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. “But we also know that if we don’t shift the balance there and the moderate groups don’t have the opportunity to be successful the day after Assad, then I think all of us are going to regret we did not play a role in helping make that happen.” 

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, declined to comment on the proposed legislation but said the White House’s policy was clear. 

“We are working urgently to end the conflict in Syria and hasten a transition from Bashar al-Assad to a democratic Syria that is inclusive of all Syrians,” she said.

Working urgently to end the conflict by arming Al Qaeda and thereby creating an inclusive, democratic Syria. How does that smell to you?

Thomas Friedman, though still wedded to his personal fantasy of the magical healing powers of capitalism, sensibly cautions us to think twice before supplying weapons to the Free Syrian Army. In his column today, "Tell Me How This Ends," he lists the likely outcomes of the civil war. It's worth quoting at length:

We can only properly answer the question — should we be arming the Syrian rebels? — if we first answer what kind of Syria do we want to see emerge and what will it take, beyond arms, to get there? 

If we want Bashar al-Assad’s regime to be toppled and pluralistic democracy to emerge in Syria, then we not only need to arm the rebels but we need to organize an international peacekeeping force to enter Syria as soon as the regime falls to help manage the transition. Otherwise, when Assad is toppled, there will be at least two more wars in Syria. First will be a war between Sunnis and Alawites, the sect that Assad represents. The Alawites will fight to defend their perks and turf. After that, there will be a war within the opposition — between the Islamists and more secular fighting forces that have very different visions of a future Syria. Only an outside peacekeeping force could make up for the lack of trust and shared vision and try to forge a new Syria. And it would be a very, very long haul. 

If our goal is to arm the rebels just to serve our strategic interests — which are to topple the Assad regime and end the influence of Iran and Hezbollah in Damascus and not care what comes next — then we need to be ready for the likely fragmentation of Syria into three zones: one Sunni, one Alawite and one Kurdish. 

That might eventually solve the trust and civil war problems, as everyone would be living “with their own,” but I am not sure it would better enable Syrians to address their development challenges.

A third option would be to arm the rebels just to ensure a stalemate — in the hope that the parties might eventually get exhausted enough to strike a deal on their own. But, again, I find it hard to see how any deal that might set Syria on the long, difficult path to a decent, inclusive political system could be implemented without outside help on the ground to referee. 

So let’s do something new: think two steps ahead. Before we start sending guns to more people, let’s ask ourselves for what exact ends we want those guns used and what else would be required of them and us to realize those ends?

In "Syrian Forces and Hezbollah Fighters Press Assault on Key City," Hania Mourtada and Anne Barnard report on the fog of war. The Syrian state news agency, SANA, reports steady gains by government forces in taking control of Qusayr, which is denied via Skype by activists inside the city. Syria says it destroyed an Israeli jeep that had crossed into its territory in the Golan Heights. Israel claims that the jeep was only lightly damaged and it never left its side of the border.

SANA said the incursion was meant to raise the “collapsed morale” of the rebels after the blows they had suffered in Qusayr. It was the second time in two days that the Syrian state news media, aiming to bolster its case that Syria’s opposition was allied with Israel, claimed that it had evidence that Israel had aided the rebels. On Monday, the state news media showed pictures of what it said was an Israeli jeep found in Qusayr, but it appeared to be an old vehicle, and experts said it could have been supplied to Israeli-allied militias in southern Lebanon years ago.

There does seem to be a pattern emerging. Rebel losses on the ground are followed by an Israeli attack. At the beginning of this month government gains in Tartus Province were followed by the Sunday morning mega-bombing outside Damascus. Something to keep an eye on.