Heightened concern that some Gulf States and Turkey want to give Syrian rebels in Aleppo more advanced weaponry has Washington warning about the potential for their misuse, as well as experts saying more weapons would prolong the conflict and increase fatalities in the long run.
Last week, U.S. officials raised the issue in light of the recent collapse of the Syria ceasefire, followed by an especially deadly barrage of Syrian and Russian warplanes strikes on Aleppo. Washington thinks the ceasefire’s failure is just the rationale countries, like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, need to provide moderate rebels with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, Reuters reported.
Washington has sought to keep weaponry commonly known as man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, out of Syria, instead focusing on training moderate rebel groups and providing them with infantry weapons, such as assault rifles and other small arms.
One of Washington’s main fears with arming rebels with MANPADS is that some of those arms would eventually wind up in the hands of extremist groups like the Islamic State. Leading up to its capture of large portions of Iraq and Syria, ISIS managed to seize large quantities of weapons and vehicles provided by the U.S. to Iraqi security forces.
Former CIA analyst and research associate at The Centre for International Governance Innovation, Jacqueline Lopour, agrees that there is the risk of potential anti-aircraft arms meant for moderate Syrian rebels falling into the hands of extremist fighters.
The distinction between “moderate” and “extremist” fighters in Syria has always been muddled and complicated, even more so with the recent rebranding of the Nusra Front when it broke ties with al Qaeda in August.
Though Nusra professes to not be as ruthless as groups like the Islamic State, their ambition for the future of Syria is still the creation of a theocratic Islamic Emirate in Syria.
In this multi-front war, with different rebel factions fighting each other, not to mention the Islamic State and the Syrian regime, small-arms intended for so-called moderates already wind up in the hands of those fighters Washington had no intention of arming.
“There are too many risks of those arms falling into the hands of rebels that aren’t moderate,” said Lopour, adding, “I have a hard time believing that the U.S. would sign off on giving the rebels these kinds of weapons.”
U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner made clear that Washington did not want to see more advanced weapons on the Syrian battlefield.
"What you would have as a result is just an escalation in what is already horrific fighting," Toner said. "Things could go from bad to much worse."
Those in favor or giving the moderate Syrian rebels these kinds of weapons point to a similar arming of the mujahedeen in Afghanistan during their war with the Soviets in the 1980s. The Afghan fighters were severely outgunned by Moscow’s airpower until anti-aircraft weaponry was provided by the U.S. with Saudi Arabia’s help.
But following the withdrawal of Soviet forces, those same weapons were then used by various mujahedeen factions fighting among themselves, then later still, by the Taliban against U.S. and NATO forces.
While Washington is hoping to avoid a repeat of Afghanistan failings in Syria, it’s not clear the White House has any real solution for Syria in the works, causing consternation at the top levels of U.S. diplomacy, including Secretary of State John Kerry.
The secretary is reportedly frustrated with some aspects of the Obama Administration’s policy on Syria and expressed concerns that Moscow had out-maneuvered Washington while the U.S. doesn’t have a clear strategy in Syria, The New York Times reported.
Joshua Landis, director of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, agrees with Kerry’s assessment in that respect, saying the Syrian regime and “Russia are winning in Syria today,” but he adds that giving the rebels in Aleppo more weapons “won’t change the course of the war.”
“Throwing a lot more arms in Aleppo is a bad policy, because there is no plan for winning,” said Landis.
He said providing the Syrian rebels with heavy arms will merely “prolong the war and cause more deaths.”
Landis said the only real strategy for Syrian rebels in Aleppo is to give up defending the city from the onslaught of Syrian regime and Russian airstrikes.
“At some point you cut your losses,” he said. “Unfortunately, in Syria, there seems to be an endless appetite for taking losses.”
Carmen Gentile has covered the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as other conflicts. His work has also taken him to West Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Carmen's recent reporting has been along the Turkish/Syrian border where he covers the refugee crisis.
