The prospect of the first
American attacks on Syrian soil during three
years of brutal civil war captivated Syrians
on Thursday, prompting intense debate over
whether airstrikes on the extremist Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria would help or harm
President Bashar al-Assad, his armed Syrian
opponents and war-weary civilians.
Raqqa, the northeastern city that ISIS has
ruled for more than a year, was abuzz with
the news. Civilians fled areas near ISIS
headquarters. Anti-ISIS insurgents
pronounced themselves energized by the
prospect of new American aid and said
Turkish officials had recently contacted
them, promising new arms to fight the
foreign-led Sunni group.
But even among fervent opponents of ISIS —
including Syrian insurgents, some of whom
stand to gain aid to battle the group — there
was ambivalence over President Obama’s
declaration that he would “not hesitate” to
strike ISIS in Syria.
Many warned that if weakening ISIS
strengthened Mr. Assad and was not
accompanied by political enfranchisement of
the Sunni majority in Syria, the strikes could
backfire, driving more Sunnis to support or
tolerate ISIS. Others worried that Syrian
civilians could be killed in the attacks.
“Some parts of Syria haven’t been destroyed
yet, but after the strike nothing will be left,”
said Matar, a spokesman for Ahrar al-Sham,
an ultraconservative Islamist group that
opposes ISIS, giving only his first name for
security reasons. “Our war is with Bashar,”
he added, complaining that America had not
responded to Mr. Assad’s indiscriminate use
of shrapnel-filled barrel bombs. “Why did
the Americans wait until now to strike?
And even those most supportive of the
strikes complained that America had abetted
the rise of extremists like ISIS by failing to
aid other insurgents earlier, and was only
attacking it now that it had swollen to pose a
threat to America and the world.
The reactions underscored the conundrum
the United States faces in wading into the
Syrian battlefield. Until now, Mr. Obama has
strenuously resisted pleas from Syrian
insurgents for more help in fighting Mr.
Assad’s crackdown against an insurgency
that began with political protests, citing
concerns that arms given to insurgents
would end up in extremist hands.
Now, framing the attack on ISIS as driven by
American national security concerns, Mr.
Obama faces mistrust from both sides. Many
insurgents consider his action too little too
late, and say his declaration that America
stands with “people who fight for their own
freedom” rings hollow. And the Syrian
government and its supporters express
suspicion that the strikes could be a cover to
attack the government.
Mr. Obama vowed not to coordinate with the
Syrian government, which he said had lost
its legitimacy through its brutal tactics
against the insurgency. The Syrian state
news media said that refusal violated Syrian
sovereignty and showed that he was “not
serious” about fighting terrorism.
Government supporters said that destroying
ISIS, Mr. Obama’s avowed goal, would be
difficult without taking advantage of Syrian
intelligence on ISIS locations, fighters and
methods.
At the same time, a person familiar with the
deliberations of Hezbollah, the Lebanese
Shiite militant group that has fought
alongside Syrian troops, said that while
coordination with the Syrian government
would be better, the group welcomed any
attacks against ISIS and believed that they
would help the Syrian government.
Mr. Assad’s opponents, and some of his
supporters, say he allowed ISIS to flourish
while his government focused on attacking
more moderate rebel groups in a deliberate
effort to wipe out his moderate opposition
and paint himself as a bulwark against
terrorism.
Major questions remain. In Raqqa, where
many have tolerated ISIS because it provides
money and a semblance of order and has
recently scored military victories against
government bases that shelled the area,
people were eager for more details on how a
political solution might follow from the
attacks.
There is a broad consensus among
diplomats, and even among some moderate
supporters of the Syrian government, that
the only way to legitimize the fight against
ISIS is through a new approach in which the
West agrees that Mr. Assad stays but must
cede some powers to a Sunni-inclusive
national unity government. But Mr. Assad’s
inner circle has given no sign of interest in
any compromise.
A lawyer from Raqqa, speaking on the
condition of anonymity for his safety, said
he opposed the American strikes, saying
they reflected “double standards” from the
West.
“Why are not Hezbollah, the Syrian regime
and its militias also considered terrorists
and destabilizing the security of the region?”
he said.
But Ahmad al-Soud, a lieutenant colonel who
defected from the Syrian Army and now
heads the newly assembled Fifth Corps, a
coalition of insurgent groups made up
mainly of defectors, welcomed the strikes.
“No one has the capacity to do it but the
U.S.,” he said. “The Islamic State now is
more dangerous than Assad in the whole
area, not just in Syria.”
He said many Syrians had joined ISIS out of
desperation and were suspicious of the
United States after years of anti-American
government speech. But if the strikes are
accurate and effective, “people will stand
with the winner, since they are weak,” he
said.
No comments:
Post a Comment