Tag Archives: Syrian civil war

Syria, United States

Backing non-ISIS jihadis in Syria is an option, but problematic

SYRIA

The options facing President Donald Trump in dealing with a deadly serious situation in Syria are terrifyingly dangerous. The options open to the American president include strategic air strikes, a possible ground invasion, additional aid for pro-West rebels or the backing of non-ISIS jihadis. It is to this last option I wish to clarify and expand upon.

Most non-Islamic State jihadist groups fighting in Syria have been keen from the outset of the civil war to show they have no intention of spreading jihad into the West.

The main Al-Qaeda-affiliated branch, Al-Nusra Front, even changed its name in a vain bid to avoid Western arms embargos.

It is true that when not fighting Syrian regime forces they are battling ISIS – while denouncing the later through their propaganda organs as Islamic miscreants.

Given this mutual loathing of ISIS and the Syrian regime, at first glance it is understandable that many Western politicians, as well as intelligence experts, have been eager to trumpet them as natural allies of the West.

However, for Mr Trump there will be two main problems when it comes to considering the wisdom of such advice. The first is that these groups are on the retreat on the battlefield, having been pounded by Russian airstrikes (in support of Assad) and repeatedly overrun by the better-trained, more heavily armed and fanatical ISIS fighters.

Then there are the lessons of the not-so-distant past: while such radical Islamist groups often swear, hand on heart, that they have no beef with the West, history suggests such declarations should be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

The most obvious example is the Mujahideen – or ‘freedom fighters’ – who, like the Islamist terrorists in Syria today, were funded and trained by the CIA in the Eighties to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan. They achieved that – and then quickly morphed into the Taliban.

Standard
Government, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

U.S. launches strikes against Syria

SYRIA

Assad

Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks during an interview with Croatian newspaper Vecernji List in Damascus.

The U.S. has launched cruise missiles against Syria, a day after President Trump said a chemical weapons attack that killed 86, “crossed many, many” lines.

Why did the U.S. attack?

Back in 2013, President Obama set a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad. The regime proceeded to use the weapons to kill 1,400 civilians, but Obama did not attack — a move Trump and other Republicans widely criticised as making America look weak.

In the wake of that episode, Assad agreed to turn over his stockpile of chemical weapons. This week’s chemical attack clearly violated that pledge. Trump called the attack — which killed at least 86 people, 27 of them children —  “a disgrace to humanity” and “truly one of the egregious crimes.”

How did the U.S. attack?

The cruise missiles were fired from a U.S. Navy vessel in the Mediterranean Sea. The missiles hit multiple targets, including the airfield which serves as the base for the warplanes suspected of carrying out the chemical attack.

The plan for the attack followed one devised in 2013 after Obama set his “red line.”

Has the U.S. struck Syria before?

The U.S. has been bombing Islamic State targets in Syria since 2014, but this was the first strike against the Syrian regime. This also marked the first conventional assault on another country ordered by President Trump.

Why did the U.S. attack from ships?

Tomahawk missiles can travel 1,500 miles to strike their target. So, the U.S. Navy was able to launch the attack from the Mediterranean Sea, avoiding the need to get permission from any host country to launch the strikes.

What are the risks of attacking the regime?

One potential concern is the safety of US Special Operations troops in eastern Syria who are advising local ground forces in their fight against the Islamic State. There are fears Assad could counter by targeting the U.S. troops. The strikes also effectively open a new front in America’s 16-year war in the Middle East.

Bunker

Damaged hardened aircraft shelters at the Syrian airbase following US airstrikes.

Airfield

Digital satellite image of the US target zone.

Tomahawkjpg

59 Tomahawk missiles were fired by the US military fleet in the eastern Mediterranean towards the Al-Shayrat airbase near Homs in Syria.

Standard
Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Moscow is colluding with Syria’s Assad

SYRIA

Idlib

Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib has claimed the lives of 72 people. More casualties are expected.

Last September, President Barack Obama expressed doubt as to whether the United States could expect Russia to help end the bloody insurrection and civil war in Syria. In a speech that Mr Obama gave, he claimed that there were ‘gaps of trust’ between the two governments. Some seven months on, those gaps have become chasms. The very notion that the Russians could be entrusted to act responsibly over one of the most volatile regions in the world now appears fanciful.

Every iota of evidence from the recent ghastly atrocity in Syria’s rebel-held Idlib province indicates that the forces of President Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes. The Russian version of events – that an airstrike hit a rebel armoury, releasing toxic agents and nerve gases – has been roundly dismissed by every serious political actor.

According to Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, the attack ‘bears all the hallmarks’ of Assad’s regime. It is believed that a nerve agent, sarin nerve gas, was used in killing dozens of innocent people.

Mr Rycroft says there is no intelligence to suggest rebel groups can access the sort of chemical weapons that appear to have been used in the strikes.

The suspected chemical attack has so far claimed 72 lives, with the death toll likely to rise as rescue and aid workers search for survivors. All the while, Russia has opposed a UN resolution drafted by Britain, France and the US which condemns chemical attacks in Syria and urges the government’s co-operation in an investigation.

Many will believe that Russia’s stance is little short of collusion, and for all the frustration that is being felt in the UN at present, it is imperative that more pressure is brought on Moscow as well as the Chinese to ensure Assad makes good on his previous pledge to give up his chemical weapons stockpile.

Standard