Finding the Right Rebels to Arm in Syria May Be Tricky
Although Rand Paul has abandoned the skepticism he recently expressed about the threat posed by ISIS, the libertarian-leaning Kentucky senator continues to argue that President Obama must obtain congressional approval for his war against the terrorist group, and he continues to question the wisdom of arming and training Syrian rebels. Yet it looks like the closest thing we will see to a congressional declaration of war in this conflict is a vote to arm and train Syrian rebels.
Here is what Paul had to say about that strategy at a Q&A session in Dallas on August 29:
What have we been doing in Syria for the last year? We've been arming the Islamic rebels. Who do the Islamic rebels want to kill? Christians, other minorities. And have they been doing it in Syria? Yes, they've captured priests and bishops and killed them in Syria. And who are some of these Islamic rebels? We say we only gave [weapons] to the nice ones, the ones that say, "Please, sir, can I have another shoulder-to-air missile or another anti-tank weapon?" The ones that were nice, we called them moderates, but there was at least one Republican senator [John McCain] who was over there having his picture taken with the "moderate" rebels, [and it] turns out some of them may have been part of ISIS….It's difficult to tell friend from foe….
When it came to my committee, I was one of only like two people who voted no. Everybody, every Republican, every Democrat voted to arm these rebels. But I told them…that some of these arms may well be used against us at some point in time….They tell you, "Oh, I love America. Just give me my Stinger missiles."…It's a little hard to determine who is your friend and who's not, and they will lie, frankly, to get our weapons.
Even after declaring his support for Obama's new war, Paul continued to be wary of using Syrian rebels as proxies for American troops. "Syria…has become a jihadist wonderland," he wrote in Time last week. "In Syria, Obama's plan just one year ago—and apparently Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's desire—was to aid rebels against Assad, despite the fact that many of these groups are al-Qaeda- and ISIS-affiliated. Until we acknowledge that arming the Islamic rebels in Syria allowed ISIS a safe haven, no amount of military might will extricate us from a flawed foreign policy."
As Robby Soave noted on Tuesday, some of those supposedlly moderate Syrian rebels supported by the U.S. may have sold American journalist Steven Sotloff to ISIS, which later beheaded him in a horrifying video that probably did more than any other single factor to boost support for the new war—the war in which we are relying on moderate Syrian rebels to help defeat ISIS. A story in today's New York Times provides further reason to worry about Obama's strategy of shoring up the right rebels:
After more than three years of civil war, there are hundreds of militias fighting President Bashar al-Assad—and one another. Among them, even the more secular forces have turned to Islamists for support and weapons over the years, and the remaining moderate rebels often fight alongside extremists like the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria.
"You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don't exist," said Aron Lund, a Syria analyst who edits the Syria in Crisis blog for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace….
Analysts who track the rebel movement say that the concept of the Free Syrian Army as a unified force with an effective command structure is a myth….
"There's a lot of skepticism about this piece of the president's strategy," said Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, a member of the House Intelligence Committee. "The so-called moderate rebels have often been very immoderate and ineffective."
Despite that supposed skepticism, Congress is about to bless this dubious strategy, even as it shies away from authorizing the war itself. "In a rare show of unity with President Obama," the Times reports, "House Republican leaders will summon their fractious members back to the Capitol a day early next week to push through legislation to authorize the military to train Syrian rebels for the fight against Islamist militants."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This makes me think of the "Judean People's Front" bit in Life of Brian.
The "Judean People's Front" is a tool of the Romans Americans!
Only the "People's Judean Front" truly represents the people!
Popular Front of Mesopotamia.
Tools of the Persians. (Works in both eras)
What have the Persians ever done for us?
SPLITTERS!
Happy Birthday, H.L. Mencken - every thing he said seems applicable to the current crop of idiots managing this war.
http://www.aei-ideas.org/2014/.....mencken-2/
Uncle Sam: The Middle East's Useful Idiot
http://www.theamericanconserva.....ful-idiot/
Great article.
Protip: There are no "right" rebels.
Today's "Usul bin Ali, noble fighter against ISIS in Syria" is tomorrow's "Usul bin Ali, terrorist plotter."
How many times do we have to see this movie before people realize that it always ends the same?
Syria is what it looks like when security agencies compete for market share.
I think Lebanon is more apt - unless you would say the Syrian rebels are trying to knock out the "market leader" then cut each other up for turf afterwards?
No it is not, arm ALL of them including Assad.
Then proceed to use strategic drops of information to just keep their natural hatred of each other alive.
They'll kill each other for us.
If the Elephant "leaders" think their craven posture toward having the president get approval to make war will help them when the Donkeys are not in the White House, they truly have earned the label "Stupid Party".
The first TEAM RED pres to try this will be met with giant paper mache heads, cries of "unitary executive" and some Donkey senator claiming the entire war "was dreamed up at [insert president's non-WH residence here]" ala Swimmer Kennedy.
Remember back in the aughts that the progressive "anti-war" movement used to ridicule Bush's assertion that he had assembled a coalition of nations in the Iraq War?
Remember when Kerry used to talk about a "global test"?
Why the hell is it up to the US to police the Middle East? Why doesn't Turkey take out ISIS? They're much closer, and much more likely to be affected. It's also a darnsight closer to Europe than to the US, and they import more oil from there than the US.
Turkey is probably ISIS' biggest state ally. Erdogan's policy has been to allow Western jihadis to cross the Turkish border with Syria to join ISIS.
In hindsight, the EU should've admitted Turkey.
Indeed, this has been true, though Erdogan is coy about it. He also did not sign off on Kerry's ISIS plan as did various Arab monarchs.
Kerry is clearly failing his global test.
No TRUE moderate rebel...
The moderate rebels are the ones that only want to cut off half your head.
Didn't anyone else watch/read Charlie Wilson's War? Inevitably, they'll be the next enemy because anyone who becomes the State will then be in tension in the US.