In a surprise move, US President Barack Obama last week asked the US Congress to earmark $500 million in direct US military training and equipment for “vetted” Syrian opposition fighters. The request came in contrast to earlier statements by Obama, who had previously characterised the opposition to Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad as “weak” and unlikely to be able to bring down the regime. As a result, the new US assistance to the Syrian opposition is being seen as a reaction to the recent advances of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group in neighbouring Iraq, which have worried strategic planners in the West. US officials had previously been reluctant to offer quality weapons to the Syrian opposition for fear that these might fall into the wrong hands. However, with these wrong hands now achieving military victories across the Iraqi-Syrian border and gaining control of oil facilities and arms depots a change of tactics has been needed. The Americans say that they want to change the balance of power on behalf of the Syrian opposition, supporting it against both the Al-Assad regime and the hardline jihadists seeking to create an Islamic caliphate in Iraq, Syria and surrounding states. The Pentagon promised to come up with detailed plans for arming and training Syria's moderate armed opposition groups, and US Secretary of State John Kerry began rallying forces for a joint effort to stop the jihadists in their tracks. Kerry visited Saudi Arabia a few days ago where he met the leader of the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCSROF) and told him that Washington wanted the “moderate” opposition to fight the jihadists in Syria and Iraq as well as put pressure on the Al-Assad regime. This might seem a tall order given the diminished capacity of the Syrian opposition, which for the past two years has been urging the US to give it quality weapons, especially shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles, to halt the regime's onslaughts. Suffering from a lack of funds, training and weaponry, the moderates in the Syrian opposition have had to retreat, as the forces of the regime and the jihadists have gained ground. NCSROF member Borhan Ghalyoun said that US policy was still ambivalent. “Obama is still not convinced of the Syrian opposition's abilities. In providing limited help, he is seeking to placate those who object to his policies. He has also been distancing himself not only from the war in Syria, but also from the whole region, giving Iran and Russia a free hand,” Ghalyoun said. “Washington's lack of political vision in Syria and the Middle East and its failure to give real support to the Syrian opposition could lead to the disintegration of the opposition and more chaos and destruction,” he added. Hadi Al-Bahrah, who chaired the Syrian opposition delegation to last year's Geneva 2 Conference, was more optimistic. “The US decision will help boost the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and help it stand up to the regime, which is still getting billions of dollars in arms from its friends,” Al-Bahrah said. According to Al-Bahrah, the US promise of help did not mean that the opposition would finally get the anti-aircraft missiles it had been hoping for, however, because “this is a separate decision”. “The FSA has moderate and reliable groups working under its banner,” he said. “If these are trained and equipped and manage to set aside their ideological differences, the FSA can turn into a reliable force.” The US Congress is expected to approve the funding proposed by the Obama administration, but it may be months before the measure changes things in Syria. The Congress's approval will take place in October at the earliest, and then the opposition fighters will have to undergo up to eight months of training to raise their combat readiness. It may be a year before the new arms are commissioned. Some commentators say that the new move may be an attempt not so much to change things on the ground as an attempt on the part of the US to brace itself for a long-term conflict in Syria and the region. Moussa Al-Nabhan, a member of the Rally of the Sons of Syria opposition group, said that the opposition might undergo reorganisation in the near future. “According to my information, we will soon see a new military and political leadership emerging to handle the Syrian crisis,” he said. The best way to fight the jihadists, Al-Nabhan said, was to reorganise the FSA, train it, and supply it with quality weapons. Former Syrian ambassador to Iraq Nawwaf Al-Fares said the fight against the jihadists would be best achieved by abolishing the sectarian regimes in Syria, Iraq and Iran. Arming the FSA alone would not defeat them. “This is a heavy task that the Syrian armed opposition cannot accomplish alone,” he added. “Sectarianism is what brings Syrian president Al-Assad and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki together. The two men have no love for each other, but they are fighting the same sectarian war on orders from Tehran,” Al-Fares stated. He wanted to see the US getting more involved in the region. “This region will suffer from wars lasting decades unless the US steps in directly and not through the medium of Syrian revolutionaries,” Al-Fares remarked. For now, direct involvement is exactly what the US is trying to avoid. But with the Congress set to approve substantial funds to arm the Syrian opposition, there is at least a whiff of recognition that the ambivalent policies that Washington has pursued for the past three years are no longer tenable.
