By Jaime Weinstein
Jonathan Spyer says the moderate rebels in Syria the Obama
administration has been touting are really Muslim Brotherhood-types who
adhere to an Islamist ideology.
Spyer should know. An academic who lives in Israel and studies the
Middle East, he has traveled to and through Syrian rebel-controlled
territory, reporting on what he saw for various publications. Asked by
The Daily Caller to respond to a much-cited Wall Street Journal article
by Elizabeth O’Bagy, which claimed “[m]oderate opposition forces …
continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime,” Spyer said,
“I can only speak regarding my own experiences and my own knowledge.”
“Undoubtedly outside of Syria, and in the Syrian opposition
structures, there are civilian political activists and leaders who are
opposed to al-Qaida and opposed to Islamism,” Spyer explained to TheDC
in an email interview. “There are also civilian activists and structures
within the country which are opposed to al-Qaida and Islamism. But when
one looks at the armed rebel groups, one finds an obvious vast majority
there who are adherents of Islamism of one kind or another — stretching
from Muslim Brotherhood-type formations all the way across to groups
openly aligned with al-Qaida central and with al-Zawahiri.”
“The ‘moderate’ force which we are told about supposedly consists of
those rebel brigades aligned with the Supreme Military Command, of
Major-General Salim Edriss,” he continued. ”Most of the units aligned
with the SMC actually come from a 20-unit strong bloc called the Syrian
Islamic Liberation Front. This includes some powerful brigades, such as
Liwa al-Islam in the Damascus area, Liwa al Farouq and Liwa al Tawhid.
These and the overwhelming majority of the units aligned with the SMC
are Islamist formations, who adhere to a Muslim Brotherhood-type
outlook.”
Spyer, author of “The Transforming Fire: The Rise of the
Israel-Islamist Conflict” and a senior research fellow at the Global
Research in International Affairs Center in Herzliya, Israel, said there
is no question that the leaders of rebel forces are not “moderates,” at
least as would be defined in the West.
'I spent some time with the Tawhid Brigade in Aleppo city at the
height of the fighting there,” Spyer said. ” I interviewed one of the
leaders of the brigade. I’ve been in the Middle East for a long time and
have worked on these issues for a long time. This was an Islamist
fighting force, adhering to an Islamist ideology. So even those forces
nominally aligned with western supported bodies are themselves
overwhelmingly Islamist in outlook (there may be a very small and
marginal number of forces who are ostensibly secular, but these are of
no military significance). It’s my contention that the real power in the
rebellion lies not in the external structures, but among the commanders
of the major fighting groups. THESE MEN ARE ISLAMISTS.'
Spyer said he initially supported a quick strike by the U.S. after
the regime of Bashar al-Assad most recently gassed its own people, but
now believes the Obama administration’s handling of the situation has
made America look “indecisive.”
“I did support a rapid response following the use by the regime of
chemical weapons on a large scale on August 21,” Spyer explained. “I
don’t think it was necessary to begin a huge political process and to
telegraph intentions, and it doesn’t surprise me that that whole great
mountain has now given birth to the mouse of no action at all. Israel’s
actions over the last year in Syria offer I think an object lesson in
how to enforce red lines. Go in quickly and forcefully, deliver the
lesson, achieve the objective and get out — with the proviso that the
action can be repeated if deemed necessary. That didn’t happen in this
case with the U.S., and I think instead the administration came across
as vacillating and indecisive — and glad to take the fig leaf that the
Russian president provided for it.”
Asked to evaluate how President Obama’s Middle East policies are
viewed in the region compared to those of former President George W.
Bush’s, Spyer said, “All the indications are that the U.S. is no more
popular in the Middle East today than it was in the last year of the
Bush administration.”
“The difference, I would say, is that while Bush was hated by
America’s enemies in the region, they also regarded him at least to some
degree as a serious customer who understood the way power is wielded
and knew how to reward friends and punish enemies. This isn’t the case
with Obama,” he said.
Spyer earned a Ph.D. in international relations from the London
School of Economics. He also served in the Israel Defense Forces and
worked for the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office from 1996 to 2000.
Related:
http://tinyurl.com/lbxngls
No comments:
Post a Comment