Quote:Turkey has called on the US, Britain and other leading countries to take immediate action to intervene in Syria to prevent a looming humanitarian "disaster" ...
That's like asking a group of arsonists to put out a fire, isn't it, JW?
Presidential debate: Obama and Romney almost word-for-word same on Syria
(By Max Fisher, The Washington Post, October 23, 2012)
The question of what the United States should do about Syria is an important one: the conflict there has killed tens of thousands of civilians, created hundreds of thousands of refugees, sparked low-level fire exchanges with neighboring Turkey, may be spreading into Lebanon, and has the potential to drastically alter the Middle East. But that question is also extremely difficult, which may help explain why neither President Obama nor Mitt Romney was able to draw much of a contrast during Monday night’s foreign policy debate.
Just how similar were the two candidates’ statements on Syria? Here are some of their comments side-by-side to give you a sense. The remarkable overlap, sometimes word-for-word, is a reminder of both Syria’s urgency and its difficulty. Tellingly, Romney strained to portray the crisis there as a failure by the Obama administration, but seemed unable to articulate a different approach.
I. Arm rebels, but not extremists
OBAMA: We are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region.
ROMNEY: And so the right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a form of — if not government, a form of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. We do need to make sure that they don’t have arms that get into the — the wrong hands. Those arms could be used to hurt us down the road.
II. Work with U.S. allies, especially Israel and Turkey
OBAMA: Everything we’re doing, we’re doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria; coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this
ROMNEY: We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with — with Israel. But the Saudi’s and the Qatari, and — and the Turks are all very concerned about this. They’re willing to work with us.
III. Make Syria a ‘friend’
OBAMA: We are playing the leadership role. We organized the Friends of Syria. We are mobilizing humanitarian support, and support for the opposition. And we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term.
ROMNEY: But I believe — we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place, steps that in the years to come we see Syria as a friend, and Syria as a responsible party in the Middle East. This is a critical opportunity for America.
IV. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s fall is inevitable
OBAMA: And I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered.
ROMNEY: I believe that Assad must go. I believe he will go.
V. My policy: organize and arm non-extremist rebels
OBAMA: But we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with.
ROMNEY: We should have taken a leading role, not militarily, but a leading role organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties; to find responsible parties.
To be fair, the candidates did hint at one potential policy difference, and it was a bit of role-reversal given their respective parties. Romney affirmatively declared at several points that he would not intervene military. “I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria. I don’t think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage. I don’t anticipate that in the future,” he said.
While Obama did not mention military intervention, has not appeared to support it in the past, and even criticized Romney in the debate for past proposals to supply the rebels with “heavy weapons,” he did choose to pause during their exchange on Syria and draw a contrast with his challenger on the 2011 Libya intervention. “But going back to Libya — because this is an example of how we make choices,” Obama said. “When we went in to Libya, and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there, because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize. We also had to make sure that Moammar Gaddafi didn’t stay there.”
It would be a strain to interpret Obama as suggesting the United States would support a similar intervention in Syria, where conditions are quite different. More likely Obama was endeavoring to make a point about “leadership.” But it’s a sign of how close the candidates are on the Syrian question that this is the one significant contrast they could draw.
The aim of those making the requests is to stop further loss of life in their country.
Peace efforts look forward after Syria truce collapses
(Agence France-Presse, October 28, 2012)
Fighting and air raids shook Syria today as the international community looked to pick up the pieces of a failed effort to halt the violence for the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha.
Fresh clashes saw rebels storm regime positions in the suburbs of Damascus as air strikes pummelled opposition-held areas on the eastern outskirts of the capital, activists and a watchdog said.
The four-day ceasefire proposed by UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi collapsed amid clashes, shelling and car bomb attacks only hours after it had been due to take effect with the start of Eid on Friday morning.
With hopes shattered of even a temporary halt to the 19 months of violence in Syria, diplomats said Mr Brahimi is looking ahead to new efforts to tackle the crisis.
Al Qaeda chief urges all Muslims to oppose Syrian government
(ABC News Radio, October 29, 2012)
In what could only be described as an ominous turn in the ongoing Syrian conflict, al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has put out a call to arms for all Muslims to take the side of rebel forces.
Making his videotaped plea, which was posted on a radical Islamic website, Osama bin Laden's successor said that Syrians must overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which he labeled a "murderous, cancerous regime."
Al-Zawahiri proclaimed, "It is the right of Syrians to protect themselves in all ways possible from injustice, murder, killing and bombardment" -- a reference to the onslaught of al-Assad's forces against both rebels and civilians in a furious bid to stay in power.
The al Qaeda leader added that Muslims all over the world must help Syrians in their efforts to oust al-Assad.
While Washington also seeks to depose al-Assad, the Obama administration is also concerned that replacement leaders could be unduly influenced by al Qaeda, further complicating the situation in Syria.
'War of extermination' in Syria: Qatar PM
(Focus Information Agency, October 30, 2012)
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al-Thani has accused the Syrian regime, with the complicity of the international community, of waging a "war of extermination" against its people, AFP reported.
Sheikh Hamad in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite channel late on Monday took issue with UN-Arab League peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who earlier in the day had characterised the deadly conflict ravaging Syria as a "civil war."
"What is happening in Syria is not a civil war but a war of extermination against the Syrian people," Sheikh Hamad said.
This war, he charged, was being waged "with a licence to kill, endorsed firstly by the Syrian government and secondly by the international community."
He was apparently referring to Russia and China, which have repeatedly vetoed UN Security Council resolutions threatening action against President Bashar al-Assad's regime.
"We have confidence in Mr Brahimi... but we need him to develop a clear proposal for a solution that can be put before the Security Council paving the way for a transition period and a transfer of power," said Sheikh Hamad.
Osama bin Laden's successor said that Syrians must overthrow the government of President Bashar al-Assad, which he labeled a "murderous, cancerous regime."
According to WND’s Aaron Klein, “Egyptian security officials” revealed that Ambassador Christopher Stevens “played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.” Stevens was reportedly a key contact for Saudi Arabian officials, who wanted to recruit fighters from North Africa and Libya, and send them to Syria by way of Turkey. The recruits were ostensibly screened by U.S. security organizations, and anyone thought to have engaged in fighting against Americans, including those who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, were not sent to engage Assad’s regime.
Yet as Klein further notes, reality is far different. The rebels the administration armed to fight Gaddafi, as well as those we may have armed to fight Assad, do include al-Qaeda members, and fighters from other jihadist groups as well.
As to the nature of the arms themselves, an October 6 report by the New York Times’ Robert Worth reveals that “Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funneling money and small arms to Syria’s rebels but have refused to provide heavier weapons, such as shoulder-fired missiles, that could allow opposition fighters to bring down government aircraft, take out armored vehicles and turn the war’s tide.” The reason they have refused to provide more lethal weapons to the rebels is partly because “they have been discouraged by the United States, which fears the heavier weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists.”
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arnold-ahlert/arming-jihadists-backfires-in-benghazi/
China announces new proposals on Syria
(Xinhua News Agency, October 31, 2012)
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi on Wednesday elaborated China's new four-point proposals on a political resolution to the Syrian conflict, urging all parties in Syria to cease fire and violence and begin political transition at an early date.
Yang made the proposals during his talks with UN-Arab League Joint Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who is visiting China for the first time since replacing former UN chief Kofi Annan as the international mediator on Syria on Sept. 1.
The situation in Syria is at a crucial stage, and is important to the fundamental interests of the Syrian people as well as peace and stability in the Middle East, Yang said, adding, "A political resolution is the only pragmatic option in Syria."
The future of the Middle Eastern country should be determined by the Syrian people themselves, and its sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity should be respected and preserved, according to Yang.
He called on the international community to spare no efforts to collaborate with and support diplomatic mediation, while enhancing humanitarian assistance to Syria.
Yang said the Chinese government attaches great importance to Syrian mediation and expressed appreciation for Brahimi's active role in the area.
China has always supported the diplomatic mediation efforts of Brahimi and former envoy Kofi Annan, and is willing to work with the international community to make continuous efforts to achieve a "fair, peaceful and appropriate" resolution, Yang said.
Brahimi introduced the latest developments in Syria and his recent mediation efforts, especially his visit to the country itself and related nations. He said political resolution is the only feasible approach to the complicated and sensitive situation in Syria and all parties involved should cease fire and violence so as to create conditions for a political resolution.
Brahimi thanked China for its firm support for his mediation. He also expressed appreciation for Chinese efforts toward a political resolution in Syria, as well as his hope that China will continue to play a positive and constructive role in this regard.
Support for jihadists in Syria swells as US backing of rebels falls short
(By Scott Peterson, The Christian Science Monitor, November 1, 2012)
When asked about the role of Islamic jihadists in Syria's long-burning civil war, an Aleppo hospital doctor recalled what prompted one Syrian to join their ranks.
The man had returned to his house one day to find it had been destroyed by a bomb, and his wife and children among the dead. "Give me one reason why I should not join the jihadists!" the man cried, recalls the doctor. "They will give me my revenge, while all the rest of the world drinks a cup of tea and says, 'Oh, it's so sad.' "
Aleppo has become the crucible of the 20-month rebellion against the rule of President Bashar al-Assad. But despite a rising death toll and a shared aim of removing the Syrian leader, US officials have stopped short of giving decisive support to rebel forces, citing fears that weapons and cash would find their way to Islamist fighters with an anti-US agenda – many of them from abroad – who have joined the fight.
Still, as the desperation in Syria mounts, with tens of thousands dead and no end to the conflict in sight, rebel commanders say the American effort to limit rebel capabilities may be spurring exactly what the United States had hoped to avoid, by extending the war and deepening the influence of Islamist fighters.
Some are Syrians looking for unbridled revenge by joining Islamist units that routinely take on frontline combat. Many others are foreign fighters coming from places as diverse as Chechnya and Iraq, where they often have had past combat experience.
Rebels have received small arms, ammunition, and communications gear from the US and other sources. Yet heavier equipment has not arrived, such as surface-to-air missiles, which rebel commanders say would turn the tide of battle in their favor by stopping Syrian aircraft and helicopters from bombing rebel-controlled territory.
Arming the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), or not, has become a hot US presidential election issue. In the final debate last week, President Obama said the US was doing “everything we can” to help the opposition, but warned that “to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step,” and that the US had to be “absolutely certain that we know who we are helping.”
Likewise, Republican candidate Mitt Romney said he would “make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves,” as long as weapons don’t get into “the wrong hands. Those arms could be used to hurt us down the road.”
But on the ground, many Syrians say the US reluctance to support their cause is yielding more jihadists, and more radical ones.
And it's questionable whether American reluctance is significantly hampering the flow of weapons to jihadists.
"If the Americans do not give us weapons, then the jihadists will get them from somewhere else," says Abu Baraa, a local Aleppo commander. In his view, current US policy "has opened the doors for jihadist Islam, not for moderates.”
Another result, often voiced in this embattled city, is that even though the US shares rebel aims, its limited support for the fight itself has ignited widespread anger toward Washington – and even prompted speculation that the US wants the Syrian regime to win.
"Before the revolution, there were no Al Qaeda here," says Abu Mohammed, the doctor. "When this regime makes these crimes, they come, and come to help.
"The US says their [pro-democracy line only]; Al Qaeda says, 'We will help.' So what do we do, smile to the US and kick out Al Qaeda?" he adds. "The longer [the war] takes, the more of them there will be."
American reluctance to help more in Syria is partly due to uncertainty about Syria's future, especially because the 2011 regime changes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are far from settled.
Strategically, the US also sees through the prism of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when the CIA provided Stinger missiles and training to anti-Soviet mujahideen fighters, only to watch them eventually morph into anti-American militant groups such as Al Qaeda.
The geopolitical stakes are high in Syria, too, where Russian, Chinese, and Iranian support for the regime – along with that of the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah – has ensured the longest and most lethal anti-regime battle so far of the Arab uprisings.
"We hoped the American government would help us in our revolution, because it fights for the democratic flag in the world – and toppled Saddam Hussein in the name of democracy," says a Syrian judge who runs a temporary court in a rebel-controlled district of Aleppo. He gave his name as Abu Ibrahim.
"But Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did nothing. America failed us," says the secular Syrian, whose tailored suit and pressed shirt contrasted sharply with the motley collection of rebels who man the frontline a few streets away. "This whole thing about jihadists is an excuse not to support us."
"The jihadists in Aleppo are so few, and we take them as a burden. We don't need them – we need their weapons, their fighters," Abu Ibrahim says. "We are ashamed to tell them to get out. They came to fight with us and we must appreciate that. We can't stop them because the West has not come to help."
Rebel commanders say that Washington's fears are overblown, and that Syrians will not accept any future control by a minority of Islamist ideologues.
"The Americans have Islamophobia. They are afraid of any Muslim, and think he's a copy of Osama bin Laden," says Sheikh Mahmoud Mujadami, a cleric and rebel commander in a western district of Aleppo.
"If the Americans study Islam, they would see many shared things: justice, democracy, problem solving," says Mr. Mujadami. "The jihadists are so few, and they don't know anything of the religion of Islam. They have a brain like a rock; they can't change their thinking. [But] they are strong in the field."
The Americans, he says, are "mistaken" about the threat posed by jihadis. Even rebel commanders who present an overtly religious face assert that Islamic radicalism can't take root in Syria – and that their top priority now is ending Assad's rule.
"The jihadis are 10 percent of the FSA. They are strong in the field, they think they are defending Muslims in Syria – they will never fight Syrians or cause trouble," says Abu Baraa, the local Aleppo commander, who sports a thick beard. On the wall in his headquarters in a downtown school is a three-foot-tall gilt replica of the door of the Kaaba, the monument in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, toward which every Muslim faces for daily prayers. Military-green cloth hangs on either side of the large golden Kaaba door to resemble the material draped on the monument. Folded prayer mats are nearby.
"Now [jihadists] are helping us, and we are grateful. That man is fighting for me, and I respect that," says Abu Baraa. "The jihadists say, 'When we finish here, we will go elsewhere.' They are not from Al Qaeda, they are defending Muslims."
Abu Baraa says the US "doesn't care how many Syrians die – for them we are like bugs."
Meanwhile, current US policy has been a gift for jihadists, he argues. It "has opened the doors for jihadist Islam, not for moderates," he says.
"The jihadis here do not have hatred of Americans. They believe in helping people who are suffering and enslaved," he adds, noting that the anti-US insurgency in Iraq was fueled by the 2003 invasion, and events such as abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.
"You have to know the difference between jihadists and Al Qaeda," he says. "There are some Al Qaeda fighters here, but we need them now."
Syria opposition groups hold crucial Qatar meeting
(Jim Muir, BBC News, November 4, 2012)
Syrian opposition groups have gathered in the Qatari capital, Doha, for a key meeting on how to form a more united front against President Assad.
The meeting could lead to a replacement body for the Syrian National Council (SNC), the main opposition in exile.
Rebel forces in Syria have criticised the SNC as out of touch, and the opposition is also split ideologically.
The talks come amid continuing violence in Syria, with reports of an explosion on Sunday near a hotel in Damascus.
There are also reports that rebels have seized a major oilfield in Deir Ezzor in the east of the country, but these have not been confirmed.
The SNC will be looking to broaden its ranks and agree on a common platform at the conference, the BBC's Jim Muir reports from Doha.
The Syrian opposition is well aware that it is widely regarded as fragmented and ineffective, and that this is becoming more and more an issue as events on the ground gather pace.
The coming days will see the most concerted effort so far to pull the bulk of the opposition together and to create effective and credible structures that the outside world can work with in trying to bring about a transition in Syria.
The outcome of the meeting is by no means certain. Divisions run deep, both among the opposition, and among the outside powers, who are watching this process closely.
The SNC will be holding four days of intensive internal meetings aimed at overhauling its structures completely, our correspondent says, bringing in new, young elements closer to events on the ground, and producing a new leadership.
It will hold talks with the Syrian National Initiative, a group of influential and respected opposition figures who are proposing the creation of a unified leadership body that would later produce a government in exile, possibly as early as next month.
Respected dissident Riad Seif is apparently being suggested by the US as the head of the new government in exile.
"An alternative to the regime is dearly needed," Mr Seif told Reuters news agency.
"We are talking about a temporary period that begins with forming a political leadership until a national assembly that represents all Syrians meets in Damascus, once Assad falls," he said.
Mr Seif was among more than 20 opposition leaders who gathered in Jordan on Thursday to hammer out proposals for a new leadership.
The participants there issued a statement to quell fears that they were planning to negotiate with President Bashar al-Assad.
"Assad and his entourage leaving power is a non-negotiable precondition for any dialogue aimed at finding a non-military solution, if that is still possible," the statement said.
New head of Syria’s opposition group urges West to send aid without strings
(The Associated Press, November 10, 2012)
The newly elected leader of Syria’s main opposition bloc in exile struck a combative tone Saturday, saying international inaction rather than divisions among anti-regime groups are to blame for the inability to end the bloodshed in Syria.
George Sabra, the new head of the Syrian National Council, told The Associated Press in an interview that the international community should support those trying to topple President Bashar Assad without strings attached, rather than linking aid to an overhaul of the opposition leadership.
Sabra, a Christian and a veteran left-wing dissident who was repeatedly imprisoned by the regime, said he and others in the opposition feel let down by their Western and Arab allies.
The Syrian opposition may have many foreign friends, he said, “but unfortunately we get nothing from them, except some statements, some encouragement.” The regime “has few friends, but these friends give the regime everything,” he added, referring to Assad allies Russia, China and Iran.
The U.S. has become increasingly frustrated with the SNC’s failure to forge a cohesive and more representative leadership, which would provide a single conduit for future foreign support. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton harshly criticized the group late last month.
Sabra, 65, headed an SNC delegation Saturday in talks with rival opposition groups on forging a new, broader opposition leadership.
The SNC has been reluctant to join such a group, fearing it would lose influence within a larger platform. Under the reform plan presented by another veteran dissident, Riad Seif, the SNC would receive only about one-third of 60 seats to make room for more activists from inside Syria.
Sabra said the SNC agrees that unity within opposition ranks is important, but suggested it would not accept a deal that could lead to its demise.
Senior SNC members portrayed the meeting as the beginning of what could be days of negotiations over the size and mission of such a group.
Seif has said his plan enjoys broad international support. Once a new group is formed, it would be recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people and be given billions of dollars in aid, he said earlier this week.
Sabra said he and the 66-year-old Seif are old friends and even shared a jail cell when both were rounded up after the March 2011 outbreak of the uprising against the regime. “The problem is with the initiative itself,” he said of Seif’s plan, arguing that it’s too vague.
The outcome of the talks will be crucial not just for the SNC, widely seen as out of touch with activists and rebels fighting on the ground but for the future of the entire opposition. Without unity among opposition groups, the international community is unlikely to step up aid.
Sabra said that the West is unfairly trying to shift blame to the opposition for the violent deadlock in the Syria conflict, which activists say has claimed more than 36,000 lives.
“We see that the obstacle in finding a positive solution for the Syrian people and protecting the Syrian people is not the (lack of) unity of the opposition, but the inability of the international community” to take decisive action, he told reporters. Assad’s allies have shielded him repeatedly from harsher U.N. Security Council measures.
In the AP interview, Sabra acknowledged that some of the criticism of the SNC was justified but said that this should not serve as an excuse to hold up international aid.
“Let’s say, we have our responsibility, no doubt about that, and we will carry this responsibility, but we need from the international community to carry their responsibility also,” he said.
Sabra was elected late Friday by 28 of 41 members of the SNC’s decision-making body, also chosen during the group’s conference this week in the Qatari capital of Doha. The choice of a Christian to lead the SNC could help counter Western concerns about the influence of Islamists from the region-wide Muslim Brotherhood in the group.
Sabra dismissed suggestions that he was chosen as a figurehead acceptable to the West, allowing Islamists pull the strings behind the scenes. “If anybody looks to my profile, nobody can put me as a picture only in front of him,” he said.
A senior Brotherhood figure, Mohammed Farouk Taifour, was chosen as Sabra’s deputy.
Sabra argued that his election is proof that the Syrian opposition is not beholden to sectarianism, even though Syria’s civil war has strong sectarian overtones.
The Assad regime has traditionally courted minorities, including Christians, to shore up its rule. The regime is dominated by Alawites, or followers of an offshoot of Shiite Islam, while most of the rebels are Sunni Muslim. Sabra said he believes Christian support for Assad is slipping.
Sabra has been a prominent opposition figure since 1970, initially in the Communist party and later as a social democrat, and was jailed from 1987 to 1995. After the start of the uprising, Sabra was imprisoned twice more, fled to Jordan on foot a year ago and settled in Paris. Sabra is a veteran politician, but said he also taught geography in high school and wrote for children’s TV, including the Arabic version of Sesame Street.
The new SNC leader said Syrians will continue fighting even if the international community does not step up.
“We will fetch weapons everywhere, we will depend on ourselves,” he said. “There is no way for Syrians to give up seeking ... freedom and dignity.”
UK troops 'could help Syria crisis'
(The Herald, November 11, 2012)
British troops could be deployed to intervene in Syria in the event of a major humanitarian crisis, the head of the armed forces says.
General Sir David Richards, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said contingency plans were being drawn up in case the onset of winter saw a worsening of conditions on the ground.
He indicated that any intervention would be limited and would need the support of people inside Syria in the areas where assistance was being provided.
Nevertheless such a move would be seen as a potential step towards a full-scale military intervention bringing British forces directly into conflict with the regime of president Bashar Assad.
"It would be a huge effort. We would be very cautious about it," he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.
"There is no ultimately military reason why one shouldn't and I know that all these options are quite rightly being examined. but we are some way off."
He said he expected the humanitarian situation to deteriorate over the winter which could lead to calls to intervene "in a limited way".
"Obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things. It is my job to make sure that these options are continually brushed over to make sure that we can deliver them and they are credible," he said.
"The main thing for now that we are all focusing on is to contain the crisis so that it doesn't spill over into countries like Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey.
"That's our primary focus but that would also accommodate a humanitarian crisis because we could help deal with that through that primary mechanism. It is certainly something we have got to look at."
Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, defended the NATO intervention in Kosovo stating: “This is a just war, based not on any territorial ambitions but on values…
West declares support for united Syrian opposition
(Agence France-Presse, November 12, 2012)
The United States late Sunday declared its support for the united Syrian opposition after various groups opposed to the government of President Bashar al-Assad decided to come together following talks in Doha, Qatar.
"We look forward to supporting the National Coalition as it charts a course toward the end of Assad's bloody rule and the start of the peaceful, just, democratic future that all the people of Syria deserve," State department deputy spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement.
Britain hailed the agreement as an "important milestone in forming a broad and representative opposition that reflects the full diversity of the Syrian people."
Qatar, which along with neighbouring Saudi Arabia, has been a leading champion of the Syrian opposition, has already said it is ready to recognise a provisional government that the National Coalition plans to form.
US Announces $30 Million Additional Syria Aid
(By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press, November 14, 2012)
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that the U.S. will provide an additional $30 million in humanitarian aid to Syria, bringing the total U.S aid to the war-torn nation to $200 million.
Clinton made the announcement in Western Australia, where she is attending an annual summit with U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and their Australian counterparts.
On Tuesday, France became the first Western country to formally recognize Syria's newly formed opposition coalition as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. The U.S. also recognized the leadership body as a legitimate representative, but stopped short of describing it as a sole representative.
Syria's opposition had been deeply divided for months despite the relentless bloodshed and repeated calls from Western and Arab supporters to create a cohesive and representative leadership that could present a single conduit for foreign aid. The formation of the coalition, after more than a week of meetings in the Qatari capital of Doha, could boost efforts to secure international backing — and possibly weapons — that will be needed to oust President Bashar Assad.
Clinton was asked Wednesday whether there was any way the U.S. would follow France and recognize the opposition as sole representatives and perhaps provide lethal aid.
"We have long called for this kind of organization," Clinton said. "The United States was deeply involved in the work that went on leading up to and at Doha. Now we want to see that momentum maintained. Specifically, we urge them to finalize the organizational arrangements to support the commitments that they made in Doha and to begin influencing events on the ground in Syria."
"As the Syrian opposition takes these steps and demonstrates its effectiveness in advancing the cause of a unified, democratic, pluralistic Syria, we will be prepared to work with them to deliver assistance to the Syrian people," she said.
Obama offers new Syria coalition praise but not weapons
(By Paul Richter and Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times, November 15, 2012)
President Obama on Wednesday praised a new Syrian opposition coalition as "a legitimate representative of the Syrian people" but pointedly said Washington was not yet prepared to recognize the group as a government in exile or provide arms to antigovernment rebels.
The president, drawing a tight boundary around the U.S. role in Syria, also repeated warnings about the presence of "extremist elements" within the fragmented ranks of Syrian armed rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar Assad.
In his first remarks on Syria since his reelection, Obama gave no sign that his administration was reconsidering its generally cautious stance on the conflict. That position apparently is being maintained despite pressure from within the United States and from allies such as Turkey and Persian Gulf states to offer more robust support, including heavy arms, to Syrian opposition forces.
The president's comments squelched, at least for now, speculation that the White House — which has called on Assad to resign — would move more aggressively on Syria once the election was over.
Fears are rising that the almost 20-month-old conflict could spark a regional conflagration in the volatile Middle East. Episodes of violence have already spilled over to Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, while hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees have poured into neighboring nations.
The White House appears intent for the moment on maintaining its policy of providing only "nonlethal" aid to the opposition. It likewise seems reluctant to act on dissidents' calls for a no-fly zone over Syria, a move that would require a substantial military commitment.
An influx of Islamic militants, including Al Qaeda sympathizers, into the heavily decentralized rebel ranks has given Obama and his advisors pause about handing over sophisticated weaponry.
"We have seen extremist elements insinuate themselves into the opposition," Obama responded to a sole question about Syria in his postelection news conference. "One of the things that we have to be on guard about, particularly when we start talking about arming opposition figures, is that we're not indirectly putting arms in the hands of folks who would do Americans harm or do Israelis harm or otherwise engage in ... actions that are detrimental to our national security."
Observers have voiced fears, for instance, that shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles, which the rebels covet, could end up in the possession of militants and be used against civilian airliners or allied aircraft.
Experts have also cited the example of blowback from the 1980s Afghanistan conflict, when Washington lavished arms and support on Islamic insurgents who later helped form Al Qaeda and the Taliban movement.
The new Syrian opposition coalition, formally known as the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, is seeking international recognition as a government in exile. The group named as its president Moaz Khatib, a moderate cleric and petrochemical engineer who has taken a strong stance in favor of democracy and against sectarianism.
International recognition of a government in exile in would ease the path for the opposition to receive and purchase arms. Rebel forces, mostly equipped with AK-47 rifles, say they have no way to counter increasing attacks by government jet fighters and helicopters.
On Tuesday, France became the first Western nation to recognize the coalition as "the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people," in the words of President Francois Hollande.
But the French leader said the question of arming the opposition was on hold until the rebels formed a transitional government.
Left unsaid at Obama's news conference Wednesday was whether the White House would give a green light for other countries or third parties to step up arms shipments to the rebels. The gulf nations of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are widely believed to have helped arm and equip various rebel factions. But there have been reports that U.S. officials have pressured gulf allies not to provide certain weaponry, such as shoulder-fired missiles.
Obama did laud the new coalition — formed Sunday in the Qatari capital, Doha, after marathon talks and intense international pressure — as "a broad-based, representative group."
The United States and other nations had urged Syria's external political opposition — dominated by longtime exiles and the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist group — to diversify its base. The new coalition says it is more inclusive of Syria's minorities than earlier opposition groups and counts a substantial membership inside Syria.
Coalition leaders also say their goal is creation of a democratic government in Syria, where the Assad family has ruled in autocratic fashion for more than 40 years. U.S. officials plan to watch the dissident bloc closely, Obama indicated.
"One of the questions that we are going to continue to press is making sure that the opposition is committed to a democratic Syria, an inclusive Syria, a moderate Syria," he said. "The more engaged we are, the more we'll be in a position to make sure ... that we are encouraging the most moderate, thoughtful elements of the opposition that are committed to inclusion, observance of human rights and working cooperatively with us over the long term."
UK to step up support for Syrian opposition
(Patrick Wintour and Nick Hopkins, The Guardian, 15 November 2012)
Foreign secretary William Hague is to brief the Commons next week on plans to step up support for the newly united Syrian opposition, either by following France in recognising the new coalition, or by calling for a lifting of the EU arms embargo.
Hague will meet his French counterpart next week after planned meetings with the Syrian opposition on Friday, while the French president François Hollande will meet key Syrian figures on Saturday in Paris, including the head of the Syrian opposition coalition, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib.
This week France became the first western power to accept the opposition coalition as the legitimate government-in-exile.
Turkey has also recognised the opposition.
The Syrian opposition made progress towards unification at a meeting in Doha last weekend and has now agreed to set up a permanent headquarters in Cairo.
The state of the opposition, British military options and the morale of the Assad regime were all discussed on Thursday at a meeting of the National Security Council – in essence a cabinet subcommittee attended by ministers and military and intelligence officers.
It was stressed that Britain was likely to offer only direct military support for the humanitarian effort as opposed to direct military intervention.
Britain's most senior general, the chief of defence staff, General Sir David Richards, is known to be wary of committing UK forces to any venture that might provoke what it is intended to prevent – a regional conflict. His advice to the NSC is believed to have explained that it would be extremely difficult to begin any kind of ground effort to support refugees within Syria without first having secured a no-fly zone – and that would mean knocking out President Assad's considerable, and sophisticated, Russian-built ground-to-air missile systems. That in itself would require a huge military buildup in the region, which could take some time.
But It is possible that Assad would allow limited support to Syrian refugees on the border with Turkey, though any buildup of western forces could be counter-productive.
Richards is understood to have made clear that if there was any sign that the regime was disintegrating, and a risk that Assad's stockpile of chemical and biological weapons could get into the wrong hands, then the west would have to be in a position to intervene quickly.
The MoD recognises that Downing Street wants to help, but Richards set out why the situation in Syria is more complex, and much more dangerous, than the one posed by Libya.
The British backed a Nato-implemented no-fly zone in Libya to protect rebels against the Gaddafi regime, but this was heavily dependent on the US to supply the drone and aircraft support to make that possible. Britain may yet be willing to back a no-fly zone to protect Syrian refugees.
Hague has said the more the opposition groups unify around a coherent programme built on respect for human rights and ethnic tolerance, the more the British government can provide aid.
Britain is largely relying on countries in the Middle East to supply arms, and waiting for the US administration to make clear its attitude to a no-fly zone.
But French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said on Thursday that his country was willing to advocate a lifting of the EU embargo on the provision of arms to the opposition so long as only specialised defensive arms, such as anti-aircraft weaponry, were supplied. The Russians are likely to see any provision of military arms as a breach of international law.
Fabius said: "For the moment, there is an embargo, so there are no arms being delivered from the European side. The issue ... will no doubt be raised for defensive arms."
Last week, David Cameron visited a UN-run compound on the border with Jordan and saw how difficult life has become for tens of thousands of fleeing Syrians. He said he was determined to do more and would be discussing with US president Barack Obama ways to increase the pressure on Bashar Assad's regime. hed Cameron is likely to visit Washington in the near future.
Before the weekend meeting in Qatar, the outgoing US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged the opposition to become more credible in order to earn the support of the west. "There has to be representation of those who are on the front lines, fighting and dying today to obtain their freedom," she said.
"This cannot be an opposition represented by people who have many good attributes, but have, in many instances, have not been inside Syria for 20, 30 or 40 years."
Earlier this week Richards revealed there are contingency plans in place for military action in Syria in case of a worsening humanitarian situation during the desert winter. "The humanitarian situation this winter I think will deteriorate and that may well provoke calls to intervene in a limited way," he said. "But no, there's no ultimately military reason why one shouldn't, and I know that all these options are, quite rightly, being examined.
"It's not impossible and obviously we develop contingency plans to look at all these things."
He said British troops could be posted to countries neighbouring Syria. "It's certainly something that we've got to look at," he said. "So we're keeping our awareness levels very high and in the meanwhile we're preparing plans to make sure that when some disaster happens, we're able to deal with it."
Some 30,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict so far.
Syrian Opposition Unification Puts West To The Test As Rebels Lay Grounds For No-Fly Zone
(By Riad Kahwaji, INEGMA News Agency, November 19, 2012)
The Syrian opposition parties have finally succeeded in unifying themselves in the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF) that was born Nov. 11, after nearly a week of meetings in the Qatari capital of Doha. The new body includes revolutionary and opposition figures and parties from inside and outside Syria and from Islamist and liberal groups, Christians and Muslims. The international community was quick to voice praise and support for the move, and many states promised to recognize NCSROF as the official legitimate representative of the Syrian people. Arab Gulf States and the League of Arab States have already recognized the new body as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people. However, the Syrian opposition leaders went into this coalition expecting the international community, especially the West, to double and speed up aid to the Syrian revolution in all its forms: Political, economic, humanitarian and especially military.
While the world watched in cold blood the daily bombardment of Syrian cities and towns by the regime’s air power and artillery, the Syrian rebels were making daily progress on the ground with whatever little help they were getting from businessmen and groups in the region. The progress made in the north and central parts of the country were so big that the rebels have practically paved the way for the establishment of a no-fly zone in northern Syria along the borders with Turkey. Armed with machineguns, rocket-propelled grenades and some heavy weapons they captured from the Syrian regular forces – like mortars, multiple rocket launchers, anti-aircraft guns and some tanks – the rebels captured most of the countryside of the provinces of Aleppo and Edlib and good chunks of Latakia and Raqqah provinces.
The most important part in all of the field developments was the rebels’ success in neutralizing the regime’s air defense capabilities in most of northern Syria and around Damascus. The rebels have stormed several air defense bases and destroyed the fire control systems and radars for the surface-to-air missiles there and captured anti-aircraft guns. Images released by the rebels showed them walking around Soviet-era SAM-2, SAM-3, SAM-5, SAM-7 and SAM-9 missiles on launch pads, with their mobile fire-control units and radars on fire or destroyed. The rebels vacated the bases in time before Syrian aircraft bombarded the site to deny the rebels the use of the missiles. Fortunately for the regime the rebels did not have the skills or the know-how to operate the missiles, otherwise they would have been able to establish their own no-fly zones over some areas or provinces. Although rebels were seen carrying some SAM-7 shoulder fired missiles, however for unknown reasons there has not yet been a documented use of these missiles. All of the downed Syrian jets and helicopters so far appear to have been hit by anti-aircraft gunfire. However, Syrian jets have been releasing heat flares during their air raids as a countermeasure to the use of heat-seeking SAM-7s.
The growing size of armed rebels showed they have no lack of manpower. This enabled them to engage the regular troops on various fronts all over the country. The battle of attrition have destroyed a lot of the regimes armor and vehicles, and demoralized many of its forces that did not stand their ground on many occasions when they came under shock attacks by the rebels. The regime seems to have employed strategic bombing from medium altitudes and controlling territory via fire power. It has been fiercely bombarding cities and towns in a clear attempt to turn the civilian population against the rebels. But it does not seem to have worked as the rebels continue to enjoy a lot of public support and the ability to move freely in most parts of the country. The rebels’ possession of anti-aircraft capability has forced the regime’s air power to drop dumb bombs from medium altitudes due to lack of smart weapons in its arsenal. Since the Syrian air force cannot carry out precision strikes it has lost its tactical edge allowing the rebels to advance slowly on the ground especially in mountainous and forest terrains that cover large parts of the Syrian landscape, giving the rebels a good advantage on the ground.
However the death toll amongst the population has been substantial and has exceeded 37,000 killed and tens of thousands injured or displaced. With a daily casualty rate of nearly 100 people the monthly death toll will be nearly 3,000 people. With such high casualty rates and considerable destruction of property, the Syrian population risks becoming radicalized, a threat the international community has to seriously consider in determining whether to intervene soon. The regime has used all it has in its arsenal except chemical weapons and ballistic missiles in hitting densely populated neighborhoods, even in its own capital Damascus in its efforts to crush the 19-month old rebellion. It even used endogenously built primitive bombs in helicopter-borne raids. Footage leaked by Syrian troops showed soldiers on board a helicopter use their cigarettes to light fuses of big canisters rigged with explosives that resemble giant sticks of dynamite, and then dropped them randomly from high altitude on towns and villages. The Syrian people have come to call these bombs the “explosive barrels.” International organizations have even accused the Syrian regime of using cluster bombs in air raids on civilian areas.
So the international community is now facing its ultimate test vis-à-vis the Syrian people. For many months the Western capitals have placed the issue of the unification of the rebels as a precondition for their full support to the Syrian revolution. Now that this objective has been achieved the Syrians, along with the Arab world, anxiously await the West to fulfill its promise, especially that the situation in Syria has become too risky to regional and international stability if it was left on its own without intervention to bring about a quick end to the fighting that has spilled across the borders of Syria’s neighbors, including Israel. Events have proven the Syrian regime’s military is not the formidable force some Western military commanders have described. The loss of popular support and daily assaults on all fronts by determined rebels have taken its toll on the Syrian regular forces plagued with frequent defections within its ranks on all levels. The West can do the whole military support without any troops on the ground through establishing a no-fly zone and supplying rebels with the right weapons. Deprived of any air power the Syrian regime will lose its main killing machine and the collapse of its forces will be sped up substantially. So Washington and the West must step in quickly with their Arab allies to bring about the inevitable end of the Syrian regime before things get any worse or get out of control in such a strategically vital country.
