‘Reconcilables’ as frenemies
The CIA has a long track record of leaving behind bigger problems than the ones they attempt to fix
The writer has a Master’s degree in conflict-resolution from the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California and blogs at http://coffeeshopdiplomat.wordpress.com
US General David Petraeus’s suggestion that members of al Nusra, an offshoot of al Qaeda, be used to fight Islamic State (IS) has raised some eyebrows in Washington, DC. He stated that it might be possible to arm some moderate fighters from al Nusra to fight against IS in Iraq. He’s also suggested that the double-crossers could be used in Syria to take down al Nusra itself and Bashar al Assad’s regime. Keep in mind that we are talking about a group which the US designated as a foreign terrorist organisation just three years ago.
Patraeus appears to be rehashing his failed strategy to convince militants in Iraq to desert al Qaeda and work with the US. Although some militias were convinced temporarily through cash payments and incentives to switch over from al Qaeda and cooperate with the US, al Qaeda reincarnated into IS soon after the withdrawal of American forces. The loosely patched together Iraqi military crumbled, allowing IS to take over US weapons and armoured vehicles worth billions of dollars. None of that recent history seems to have humbled the disgraced ex-CIA director.
The US has spent years trying to raise native forces to police the chaos left behind from conflicts waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, these efforts have not proven successful, which makes Patraeus’s recommendation of arming al Qaeda’s Nusra Front members even more bizarre. He stated that, “it might be possible at some point to peel off so-called ‘reconcilables’ who would be willing to renounce Nusra and align with the moderate opposition (supported by the US and the coalition) to fight against Nusra, IS and Assad. Doing so would require both the rise of much stronger, moderate opposition groups — backed, again, by the US and the coalition seeking to defeat IS… ”. It is not clear exactly how the US will identify and reach out to “reconcilables” without alerting the non-reconcilables. This seems awfully familiar to what unravelled in Afghanistan, i.e., cash payments to terrorists not to fight and military trainings.
An initial effort to train 15,000 fighters in three years, has floundered in Syria. US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has acknowledged that their goals have fallen far short. The $500-million programme operating out of Turkey is intended to build a force that will fight the IS group on the ground. The first team of American-trained military fighters fell apart last month. Many of the 54 members simply decided to return to Syria, while some were reportedly captured by al Nusra.
Even without the recent mishaps in Afghanistan and Iraq, the CIA has a long track record of leaving behind bigger problems than the ones they attempt to fix. It is almost as if they only want to ensure that perceived national threats remain as unstable as possible. This doesn’t bode well for the people of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. What would be the outcome of successfully carrying out Petreaus’s plan to arm and train al Nusra? By the time IS is defeated in Iraq and Basir al Assad’s government in Syria is overthrown, we will likely be busy talking about who needs to be armed to combat these “reconcilables”.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2015.
Patraeus appears to be rehashing his failed strategy to convince militants in Iraq to desert al Qaeda and work with the US. Although some militias were convinced temporarily through cash payments and incentives to switch over from al Qaeda and cooperate with the US, al Qaeda reincarnated into IS soon after the withdrawal of American forces. The loosely patched together Iraqi military crumbled, allowing IS to take over US weapons and armoured vehicles worth billions of dollars. None of that recent history seems to have humbled the disgraced ex-CIA director.
The US has spent years trying to raise native forces to police the chaos left behind from conflicts waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. So far, these efforts have not proven successful, which makes Patraeus’s recommendation of arming al Qaeda’s Nusra Front members even more bizarre. He stated that, “it might be possible at some point to peel off so-called ‘reconcilables’ who would be willing to renounce Nusra and align with the moderate opposition (supported by the US and the coalition) to fight against Nusra, IS and Assad. Doing so would require both the rise of much stronger, moderate opposition groups — backed, again, by the US and the coalition seeking to defeat IS… ”. It is not clear exactly how the US will identify and reach out to “reconcilables” without alerting the non-reconcilables. This seems awfully familiar to what unravelled in Afghanistan, i.e., cash payments to terrorists not to fight and military trainings.
An initial effort to train 15,000 fighters in three years, has floundered in Syria. US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has acknowledged that their goals have fallen far short. The $500-million programme operating out of Turkey is intended to build a force that will fight the IS group on the ground. The first team of American-trained military fighters fell apart last month. Many of the 54 members simply decided to return to Syria, while some were reportedly captured by al Nusra.
Even without the recent mishaps in Afghanistan and Iraq, the CIA has a long track record of leaving behind bigger problems than the ones they attempt to fix. It is almost as if they only want to ensure that perceived national threats remain as unstable as possible. This doesn’t bode well for the people of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. What would be the outcome of successfully carrying out Petreaus’s plan to arm and train al Nusra? By the time IS is defeated in Iraq and Basir al Assad’s government in Syria is overthrown, we will likely be busy talking about who needs to be armed to combat these “reconcilables”.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2015.