Rebels Apoplectic Over Possibility of Peace + Anne Barnard Wising Up

Now that the focus of the Syrian civil war has shifted away from a vote in the U.S. Congress authorizing military force to diplomacy in Geneva the warmongering opposition is growing increasingly agitated. The Syrian National Coalition and its paymasters in the Gulf Cooperation Council don't want any talks regardless of their content, except possibly for a discussion of the details of an unconditional surrender of the Alawite-led Baathist government. That's what jumped out at me after reading this morning's news. Take Michael Gordon and Steven Lee Myers' "Syria Talks Yield Plan to Discuss Peace Conference":

Sitting on a dais with Mr. Kerry, Mr. Lavrov hailed effort of the Russian president, Vladimir V. Putin, to persuade President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to join the treaty banning chemical arms, and stressed the need to resume peace talks in Geneva. 

Mr. Lavrov said it was “very unfortunate, that for a long time, the Geneva communiqué was basically abandoned,” referring to the 2012 document that outlined basic terms for the peace talks. 

Despite the public facade of unity, however, the United States and Russia have been sharply divided over how to organize a political settlement and who should attend a peace conference.

After Mr. Kerry flew to Moscow and proposed a peace conference in May, Russia wanted to include Iran, which along with the Kremlin is one of the principal backers and arms suppliers of the Assad government. 

The United States has opposed including Iran and has argued instead for including the “London 11,” a group of European and Arab nations that have been supporting the Syrian resistance. But that has been rejected by Moscow. 

Another possible complication is getting the Syrian opposition to attend. Syrian rebel leaders are bitter about Mr. Obama’s decision to put off military action and explore a disarmament plan with the Russians. 

In a recent statement, Gen. Salim Idris, the head of the military wing of the Syrian opposition, rejected the Russian initiative and said the Syrians who carried out the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus that started the current crisis must be punished.

In an effort to address their fears, Mr. Kerry spoke Thursday with General Idris and Ahmad al-Jarba, the president of the Syrian opposition, and sought to assure them that the military option remained on the table and that the Obama administration would insist that any understanding about Syria’s chemical weapons be verifiable and enforceable, a State Department official said.

But it remains to be seen whether Mr. Kerry made any headway in calming the opposition’s anxieties.

The Syrian National Coalition depends on many lies, first and foremost of which is that it represents the aspirations of Syrians who rose up in protest during the Arab Spring. Another big lie that is told repeatedly by both the opposition and the United States Government is that Assad and his Russian backers resist negotiations; in fact, the Russians have been pushing for months for Geneva II talks to begin. It is the U.S. and the rebels that have resisted diplomacy, something that was clear back in the late spring and early summer but which has grown increasingly obscure as the reporting tended to focus predominantly on the ascension of Al Qaeda-affiliated jihadists on the battlefield and then last month the chemical attack in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

But now peace talks are back in the news and the opposition is apoplectic. What does that tell you? It tells you that the chemical attack was designed to spur a U.S.-led attack on Syria that would significantly weaken the Syrian Arab Army and force Assad from office. Regime change a la Libya. The opposition and its supporters didn't factor public opinion into its calculations. Overwhelming voter opposition representing the entire political spectrum scared politicians in the West to hold off on an illegal, unilateral military intervention.

The next immediate concern for the warmongers is to try to spin the United Nations report on the Ghouta chemical attack before it comes out. The media is already rife with stories from anonymous sources saying that the investigation shows the Syrian government is to blame.

The Syrian National Coalition has no popular support. Even its advocates in the press are wising up. Check out Anne Barnard's story today, "Syrian Rebels Say Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Weapons Deliveries":

Rebels in southern Syria who nominally answer to the loose-knit, Western-backed Free Syrian Army said Thursday that they had received new infusions of arms from Saudi Arabia, delivered through Jordan, and that the weapons had helped them gain ground near the border. 

At the same time, Gen. Salim Idris, the nominal commander of the Free Syrian Army, declared on Thursday his “absolute rejection” of the chemical weapons deal offered by the Syrian and Russian governments. He said rebel fighters felt they were being “left alone,” without “direct military support” from the United States.

The repeated insertion of "nominal" is noteworthy, as is the petulance of Free Syrian Army commander Gen. Salim Idris set off in quote marks. Barnard has been a strong proponent of the rebels, but of late her support seems to be slipping. Her article today is actually a sensible exposition of the power politics of the proxy war underway in Syria.