Peace Talks on Syrian Civil War Will Not Happen

In a story by Michael Gordon written last weekend that appeared in Monday's national edition of the New York Times, the head of the Syrian National Coalition, Ahmad al-Jarba, announced, albeit lukewarmly and with some caveats, that he would meet with Syria's Baathist government for peace talks in Geneva.

Well, the canard didn't last long. Al-Jarba, in a interview yesterday with Qatar News Agency, reversed himself. Ben Hubbard, reporting from Beirut, has the story, "Head of Syrian Opposition Rejects Talks With Assad":

Mr. Jarba could not immediately be reached for comment about his change in position, but Samir Nashar, a member of the coalition, said that Mr. Jarba’s earlier statements on peace talks had upset others in the coalition by suggesting a softer line. 

The coalition had agreed, Mr. Nashar said, that conditions for any talks included removing Mr. Assad from power, the withdrawal from Syria of all fighters who have joined Mr. Assad’s side from Iran and the Lebanese group Hezbollah, and prosecutions for those accused of war crimes. 

Mr. Nashar also said that talks could begin only if the rebels were winning. “Many are refusing to go with the current conditions,” he said. “The opposition won’t go unless there are military achievements on the ground.”

In other words, peace talks can't begin until the Syrian government is prepared for unconditional surrender.

A reading of Hubbard's story leaves one with an renewed understanding of the fictitious nature of the Syrian National Coalition:

The Syrian government has also expressed doubts that the opposition, which is troubled by internal disagreements and rivalries, can honor any agreement reached. 

Mr. Jarba’s organization has limited links to the many groups battling Mr. Assad’s forces in Syria and is not recognized by the extremist battalions linked to Al Qaeda that are often the most effective militarily. 

Momentum in the war has shifted in favor of Mr. Assad in recent weeks as his forces have retaken territory, and many rebel groups have become bogged down in local turf battles and infighting.

Even if a peace agreement were to be reached with the opposition it would mean nothing on the ground. Al Nusra Front and Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham fighters want a caliphate not a democracy; the Kurdistan Workers Party want a Kurdish state. The idea that sitting down and talking with al-Jarba will accomplish anything other than wasting time and diverting attention is now quite clear I think.

What is troubling is today's offering from Michael Gordon, "Some Syria Missiles Eluded Israeli Strike, Officials Say." Based on a leaked classified U.S. intelligence assessment by an unnamed official stating that Israel's July 5 bombing of a warehouse near Latakia did not destroy all the Russia Yakhont antiship cruise missiles stored there, the point of Gordon's spooky story is to announce further Israeli strikes.

The entire piece reads as if it had been written by a loyal government factotum punching the clock at Langley. Bradley Manning is looking at over 100 years in prison for his release of classified information. But his leak didn't bolster the company line.

The second half of Gordon's story is devoted to rehashing the number of foreign forces fighting in Syria for the Assad government: Iranian Quds force, Iraqi Badr Corps, Hezbollah. Any word about the significant Wahhabi groups affiliated with Al Qaeda who are waging jihad against the Syrian government and people? No, not really. We get one sentence, the last, sort of as an afterthought: "Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been arming the Syrian rebels, and Congress recently dropped objections to a proposal by President Obama to provide training and light arms to them."

Often these days reading the Gray Lady's coverage of Syria is akin to reading Pravda in the 1950s.