Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the "Moderate Rebels"

[newthinking]

Syria, the Times and the Mystery of the "Moderate Rebels"

David Bromwich
Professor of Literature, Yale University
Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/syria-the-times-and-myste_b_8236164.html?utm_hp_ref=syria

After a two-year absence from the international stage -- during which the mainstream media dispatched them to the realm of nonexistent entities -- on October 1 the "moderate rebels" of Syria were back. The New York Times said so. Russian attacks were targeting moderates rather than ISIS, a man with a camera was quoted saying; and the Times story by Anne Barnard appeared to confirm his suspicion; even as a companion report on Russian actions in Syria by Helene Cooper, Michael R. Gordon, and Neil MacFarquhar revealed that these are the same moderates who were carefully vetted by the CIA, and concerning whom little was heard ever after. Their numbers are put at 3,000 to 5,000, though the Cooper-Gordon-MacFarquhar article leaves uncertain if that is their original or their present strength. This illumination, after so long a blackout, will doubtless be a subject for inquiry in coming days. Why it would seem worthwhile for the Russians to attack so small a force, neither of the Times stories bothered to say; nor did they explain why, if the moderate rebels are anti-Jihadist, they were allowed to garrison in the town of Talbiseh in a region north of Homs that (according to the veteran Middle East reporter Patrick Cockburn) has been "ruled" for the past two years "by Jabhat al-Nusra and associated extreme Islamist groups."

One cannot help being struck, in the Barnard story, by a disparity between the thinness of the evidence and the cocksure tone of the analysis. Consider the single piece of local testimony (generically confirmed by US sources) that is used to get us to take on trust a rebel's characterization of himself:

Among the areas hit was the base of a group that had been supported and supplied by the United States and its allies, said its leader, Jamil Saleh. He said the group's base had been hit severely in Hama Province, wounding eight of his men. Later on Wednesday, American officials confirmed that some groups supported by the United States had been hit.

"We are on the front lines with Bashar Al-Assad's army," said Mr. Saleh, whose group has recently posted videos of its fighters using sophisticated American-made TOW missiles to destroy government tanks. "We are moderate Syrian rebels and have no affiliation with ISIS. ISIS is at least 100 kilometers away from where we are."

But ISIS is not the only enemy of American interests in Syria and Iraq, and it is not the only terrorist entity the US government is pledged to defeat. How close are the moderate rebels to al-Nusra? Again, the Times story does not ask.

An editorial tailwind carried the paper's fascination with the moderate rebels into a second day of coverage on October 2. A story by Barnard and MacFarquhar, "Vladimir Putin Plunges into a Caldron in Syria," speculates that Putin's entry into the war will push "independent Islamists" to ally themselves with al-Nusra, and hence presumably will take them a degree closer to ISIS. "One previously independent Islamist brigade declared its allegiance to the Nusra Front, saying unity was necessary because America and Russia were allied against Muslims 'to blur the light of truth.'" Once more, there is a nagging hint of unasked questions. What exactly is an "independent Islamist"? How close was this brigade to the "democratic values" that America espouses? Indeed, how close could it have been if the allure of al-Nusra was just a bombing attack away?

Continued:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/syria-the-times-and-myste_b_8236164.html?utm_hp_ref=syria

[bemildred]

1. The Neoconservatives' Fairy Tales about Syria

Neil Gaiman famously paraphrased G.K. Chesterton as saying: “Fairy tales are more than true—not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.”

The prince of paradox had a point. But we should also bear in mind that some stories about vanquishing monsters are dangerously false. This is especially the case in Iraq, where a fairy tale has grown up around our long war there.

The dragon in question is the sectarian conflict that was unleashed after the United States deposed Saddam Hussein. Neoconservatives and hawks have dreamed up a yarn that goes something like this: Iraq was initially roiled with violence, thanks to Sunni and Shiite uprisings. It fell to the gallant George W. Bush to ride to the rescue and heroically order a troop surge. This led to peace throughout the land—until the yellow-bellied Barack Obama pulled out the troops, which undermined the Sunnis in western Iraq and ushered in ISIS.

It’s a fairy tale worthy of Mother Goose, but it persists in the minds of many intellectuals. In fact, while violence in Iraq did indeed drop off precipitously after the surge, this had less to do with our troop escalation than it did with General David Petraeus’ ceasefire deals with Sunni warlords—which often involved generous payouts. It was a purchased peace and not everyone was comfortable with it. In 2008, General Douglas MacGregor prophetically warned that “buying off your enemy” is “not a long-term solution to creating a legitimate political order.” Meanwhile, Shiite militias with ties to then prime minister Nouri al-Maliki were ethnically cleansing Baghdad of Sunnis right under President Bush’s nose. Maliki’s policy toward the so-called Awakening Councils also turned ruthless.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/the-neoconservatives-fairy-tales-about-syria-14003