Better Late Than Never, Gray Lady Announces Syria Rife with Foreign Jihadis

This morning the New York Times prominently features on its front page the story "As Foreign Fighters Flood Syria, Fears of a New Extremist Haven." Written by Anne Barnard and Eric Schmitt, the news that Sunni jihadists affiliated with Al Qaeda make up a significant, if not the most significant, opposition force fighting in Syria is nothing new: 

Known as fierce fighters willing to employ suicide car bombs, the jihadist groups now include more than 6,000 foreigners, counterterrorism officials say, adding that such fighters are streaming into Syria in greater numbers than went into Iraq at the height of the insurgency there against the American occupation.

This story of course has been reported for many months and has been the main focus of discussion about the lunacy of the United States aiding in the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. The only new wrinkle is that the number of jihadis traveling to Syria is purportedly greater than the influx into Iraq a decade ago to battle the U.S. occupation. This quote appeared earlier in the week in Siobhan Gorman's Wall Street Journal interview with number-two man at the Central Intelligence Agency, Michael Morell.

It appears that the purpose of Barnard and Schmitt's frontpage piece is to repeat the CIA's talking points, the gist of which is that the Syrian civil war is now the number one threat to U.S. national security. Syria collapses and its stockpile of chemical weapons end up in the hands of Al Qaeda, a failed-state breeding ground of terrorism in the heart of the Middle East.

Those of us who have been against Western and Sheikhdom military support of the opposition have been consistently raising doubts about the wisdom of destabilizing Syria, a point emphasized by Syria's Baathist government at the outset of the conflict two-and-a-half years back. Well, now this message is being appropriated by the United States government.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. One could see this coming. Ignore, look the other way, if not actually provision and transport (though there is evidence of that) the Sunni foreign fighters entering Syria to form a caliphate; then suddenly declare their presence and proclaim a imminent threat and casus belli. The poison gas canard didn't work, but Al Qaeda certainly will.

The Barnard and Schmitt story itself is a tumult of nonsense, innuendo, contradiction and fascinating reporting. First, an Islamic State of Iraq and Syria commander in Raqqa is quoted saying that the primary target of jihad is Iran. Nothing about Israel and the United States; it is as if his only source of information has been Anne Barnard's reporting:

In Raqqa recently, a commander of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria sipped coffee after breaking the Ramadan fast, wearing a Pakistani-style outfit. The commander, Abu Omar, was Syrian, a member of a tribe in the area, but he described his movement’s goals as reaching far beyond the country’s borders. 

He did not speak of attacking the United States. But he threatened Russia, and he spoke of a broad-based battle against Shiite-led Iran and its quest to dominate the region, and said Sunnis from across the world were justified in flocking to Syria to fight because of the government’s reliance on Shiite fighters from Lebanon and Iraq.

He rejected calls from some in the Syrian opposition to keep the fighting focused inside Syria and aimed at toppling Mr. Assad. “We have one enemy,” Iran, he said, “and we should fight this enemy as one front and on different fronts.”

He also seemed to suggest that Russia would be a legitimate target for its role in supporting Mr. Assad and for its brutal suppression of Muslim militants in the Caucasus. 

“Russia is killing Muslims in southern Muslim republics and sends arms and money to kill Muslims in Syria as well,” he said. “I swear by God that Russia will pay a big price for its dirty role in the Syrian war.”

Then Barnard and Schmitt lend credence to the fable that the jihadists are supported by the Syrian government as part of a strategy to weaken the Free Syrian Army:

The leader of the Free Syrian Army, Gen. Salim Idris, recently accused the jihadists of working for or receiving aid from the Assad government, not a completely far-fetched proposition, given that Western officials widely believe the Assad government played a major role in funneling Syrians and other foreigners into Iraq during the insurgency there. Some rank-and-file rebels say that government artillery and warplanes attack them fiercely while largely leaving jihadist positions alone. 

Free Syrian Army fighters have clashed with jihadist groups in recent weeks over weapons and supplies, and civilian anti-Assad activists have struggled with them over their efforts to impose religious rules on society. The groups have kidnapped and imprisoned dozens of activists.

Finally, Barnard and Schmitt conclude their tale by contradicting this idea of the Syrian Arab Army working in concert with Al Qaeda to weaken the FSA by describing how the FSA collaborated with a Chechen jihadi group to take Menagh air base in Aleppo:

This week, the jihadist group Jaish al-Muhajireen wal Ansar, or the Army of Emigrants and Supporters, led by a fighter from the Caucasus known as Abu Omar al-Shesheni — the Chechen — worked with Free Syrian Army battalions to take the Menagh air base in Aleppo Province after 10 months of trying. 

What appeared to turn the battle around, said Charles Lister, an analyst with IHS Jane’s Terrorism and Insurgency Center, were the relentless suicide vehicle bombings on the walls of the base — five or six times in the past two weeks, he said. 

After the battle, Col. Abdul Jabbar al-Okaidi, the head of the United States-backed opposition’s Aleppo military council, appeared in a video alongside Abu Jandal, a leader of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. 

In camouflage, Colonel Okaidi offered thanks to “our brothers al-Muhajireen wal Ansar and others,” adding: “We’re here to kiss every hand pressed on the trigger.” He then ceded the floor to Abu Jandal and a mix of jihadist and Free Syrian Army leaders, who stood together, each praising his men, like members of a victorious basketball team. 

Such cooperation has complicated efforts to isolate the jihadists within the insurgency, where commanders of all political stripes realize they have little choice but to collaborate with any ally available. 

“There’s an awful lot of pragmatism on the ground,” Mr. Lister said. “There’s a realization that without extensive coordination on the ground this could go on for years and years or the opposition could be defeated, so no matter what the long-term objective, it might be still worth it in the medium term to coordinate across groups.” 

But that same pragmatism, Mr. Ibish said, suggests there is hope that many of the Syrians fighting alongside extremists are not ideologically committed to those groups’ goal of an Islamic state, and could peel away from it if offered an alternative.

Going forward this is the dynamic to watch for: the West declares that Syria is now threat numero uno because of a resurgent Al Qaeda all the while it works with and aids Al Qaeda through the CIA-dependent Free Syrian Army. The conceit here is that once Syria collapses the West can roll back Al Qaeda by paying people, like the U.S. did in Iraq, to turn on the jihadis.

New York Times Against Arming Syrian Rebels

Thankfully, the New York Times in an unsigned editorial this morning is coming out against military intervention in Syria. Excellently titled, "After Arming the Rebels, Then What?" it concludes:

Like most Americans, we are deeply uneasy about getting pulled into yet another war in the Middle East. Those urging stronger action seemed to have learned nothing from the past decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, which has sapped the United States and has produced results that are ambiguous at best.

This is exactly the right thing to emphasize as the war pigs clamor for antitank guns and no-fly zones. Have we learned nothing? Are we so bereft of intelligence that we repeat disastrous military commitments in the name of a fictional Lebensraum of the Western mind -- "democracy." How's "democracy" doing in Afghanistan? How's "democracy" doing in Iraq?

The Wall Street Journal reported this week what a no-fly zone would look like. Plans have been drawn up to enforce a no-fly zone from Jordan stretching 25 miles into Syria. Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the West today that such a no-fly zone would be illegal and he rejected U.S. allegations of Syrian government poison gas use. Echoing UN Secretary Ban Ki moon (see Colum Lynch's Turtle Bay blog), Lavrov, according to The Associated Press, "said Saturday that the evidence of Syrian chemical weapons use cited by the U.S. is not reliable and doesn't meet requirements of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons."

He said the organization specifies that samples taken from blood, urine and clothing can be considered reliable evidence only if supervised by organization experts from the time they are taken up to delivery to a laboratory.

Peter Baker has a frontpage story, "Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms," outlining the war going on within the Obama administration over Syria. Obama, Baker reports, is fighting hawks in the foreign policy establishment; he's trying to keep U.S. military involvement to a minimum. There's a good quote from Zbigniev Brzezinski:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, said he was “baffled” by Mr. Obama’s decision to become more deeply involved. “What exactly is our objective?” he asked. “It’s not clear to me that every nondemocratic government in the world has to be removed by force.” 

The Syria war is a struggle for power, not democracy, he said. “Is that something we should be engaged in?”

Brzezinski, the architect of our current entrenched military occupation of the Middle East, has had a change of perspective in the decades since he helped formulate the Carter Doctrine.

It's important to keep in mind what we know from reading the paper every morning. Most of the rebels fighting in Syria, now beginning to be described in the Western press as insurgents, are foreign fighters responding to fatwas issued by prominent Sunni clerics calling for jihad. We know that these jihadi are no match for Hezbollah and the Syrian military, more weapons or no. As the fighting rages in the rebel-held Aleppo neighborhood of Sakhour, the opposition's only hope remains direct military intervention by the West.

Can Obama hold the line against the war pigs? He just might be able to. His legacy and the future of the Democratic Party depend on it, not to mention any hope for peace and the territorial integrity of the current Middle East.