The US is giving $60 million [NYT], but not weapons, to the Syrian rebels just as the EU is set to provide military training. Jon Lee Anderson views this as a calculated bet:
Syria’s diverse armed opposition is too engaged in war with the Syrian regime to be truly assessed, monitored, and somehow “made safe” in exchange for U.S. support, and that seems unlikely to change soon. This is a hydra-headed war, a bit like a high-stakes poker game, and the best Washington can likely do is take a deep breath and sit down at the table to try its hand, hoping to make some profit by doing so and not lose the family farm in the process.
Paul Mutter also checks in on Syria:
According to Syria Comment’s Joshua Landis, one of the main reasons the US government continues to demonstrate great reticence in openly backing any rebel force diplomatically, let alone militarily is because “the sort of received wisdom in Washington today is that Syria is going to become Somalia because all of these groups are going to end up in an extended civil conflict once they get through Assad.” Landis explains that “the main groups from the Islamic front [rivals to the FSA, and likely the preferential recipients of aid from the Gulf states] are trying to find [more] common ground, and these Salafists are willing to push aside Jahbat al-Nusra” despite a burst of initial support for it when it was designated a terrorist organization by the US. The foreign fighters’ haughty disdain for their Syrian brothers-in-arms, it appears, are playing a large part in the increasingly negative response to their presence in Syria.
The Beltway calculus is, he says, that “to pick an effective winner in Syria, you need to be able to pick an Islamist” and the White House does not think it can sell anyone in Syria that way to justify a more direct role.
Michael Weiss argues the policy of “non-lethal” aid an illusion, since smaller states and regional allies are already funding the opposition, possibly with America’s backing:
[Weapons] have apparently been purchased by Saudi princes and delivered to Jordan for distribution into Daraa, though they’ve lately been popping up all over the country, including, alas, in the hands of Ahrar al-Sham. Croatian newspaper Jutarnji List, reported that four cargo shipments were documented on December 14th and 23rd, January 6th, and February 18th. That fine publication even went to the trouble of producing a photograph of a Jordanian transport aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Zagreb’s Pleso airport. Croatia’s foreign ministry vehemently denies conducting business with any sheikhs for the purpose of any Arab revolution, yet sources tell me that prior to authorizing these arms sales, Croatian diplomats toured Washington asking US officials for their permission to do exactly that. They evidently got it. So, in effect, Washington is already involved in exactly the kind of “militarization” of the opposition it publicly claims to abjure as it still holds out for a “peaceful” transition of power.
Alia Brahimi takes this strategy as confirmation that the US has given up on any chance for negotiation or diplomacy with Russia and China:
Perhaps the US now fears that the radical Islamist flag is rising in Syria, with or without US intervention. Thus, the attempt to shore up more democratically inclined/”US-friendly” fighters is as much aimed at ensuring that US interests are secured in a proxy war, as it is at toppling Assad. This, more than anything, represents a firm acknowledgement that the future of Syria will be settled on the battlefield.
(Video: EA captions: “Residents of al-Raqqa topple statue of late President Hafez al-Assad on Monday”)
The Dish 