Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

Congress OKs Arming, Training Syrian Rebels to Fight ISIS

The House and the Senate have both voted to allow the US government to arm and train Syrian rebels for the purpose of fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria [ISIS, also known as ISIL]. This is probably the best option of a crop of bad choices. Once the US botched the occupation of Iraq, something like this was almost inevitable. The trick now is to understand that no matter what happens, a certain amount of awfulness is built into the situation.

This journal has argued for months that the Syrian rebels needed to be armed to take on the regime in Damascus, that they would be best served by receiving such firepower from other Arab states and not the US and that they would, at best, be able to force a negotiated settlement with the Assad dictatorship based on a military stalemate. With the rise of ISIS as a terrorist threat to the entire world, the US is in need of someone to do the ground pounding that it cannot, for political and diplomatic reasons, do itself. Some of the factions among the Syrian rebels may be suitable.

Some legislators, however, see it differently. On the right, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, "Intervention when both choices are bad is a mistake. Intervention when both sides are evil is a mistake." As an eye doctor, he probably never had to take many history classes. History teaches that the best way to deal with two evil sides is to use one to destroy the other and then address the surviving evil. Stalin was a mass murderer and the west made sure he got enough arms and other materiel to defeat Hitler who was also a mass murderer. When that was settled, the west and Stalin had it out during the Cold War. Letting the two evils fight it out merely leaves one without leverage with the survivor.

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said "I think it's very hard to sort out the moderate rebels from the extremists and I have a real worry that once we send these rebels back into the battle space there is very little we can do to prevent them from locking arms with al Qaeda or elements of ISIS." The prevention, Senator, is done before they got back into the battle space. Western intelligence needs to get a handle on who these people are, what motivates them and must win their trust. This was always going to be a finesse job.

One option that the White House has not apparently considered, and which this journal finds morally dubious but quite practical, is coordinating US airpower with the ground forces of Damascus. Yes, the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. However, it does not have as part of its agenda, attacking the United States or its allies (even Israel -- the Zionist nuclear deterrent does work). The same cannot be said of ISIS. Therefore, there may be some way in which teaming up with President Assad, the war criminal, may be an acceptable if distasteful stratagem.

The key point is that air power alone does not win. It never has. Without troops on the ground following up the airstrikes, the gains are temporary and victory comes no closer. At the same time, the Bush administration shredded the US military's ground forces in ill-advised adventure in Iraq that has resulted in the rise of ISIS. Local troops, while less reliable from Washington's perspective, are certainly more likely.

In the end, the view of John McCain (R-AZ) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) sums it up. The former demanded from the well of the Senate that those opposed to arming the rebels offer an alternative beyond doing nothing. Ms. McCaskill said, "All of those people criticizing this choice, I have yet to hear their better idea." This is the least bad option.

© Copyright 2014 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home