Syria’s rebellion has been divided across several different factions for quite some time, and efforts to form an umbrella group have failed repeatedly. The divisions are still growing, and it’s hard to imagine the rebels ever coming to any sort of real agreement.
The Syrian National Coalition (SNC) reflects both the ambitions of the US and its utter failures, as the group continues to struggle with leadership battles and with little support among the fighters on the ground. The group finally agreed to another president, Ahmed Assi al-Jabra, but the compromise choice and the time it took to reach that decision just underscores the SNC’s weak position.
It’s just getting worse, too, as the coup in Egypt has more and more of the Islamist rebels opposed to the idea of democracy on general principle, having learned the lesson that force of arms trumps voter support.
The SNC isn’t exactly a straightforward pro-democracy group, but as it courts support from Western nations it must at least give that appearance, and certainly can’t endorse rebel fighters who see military conquest as the safest route to rule, and as a result they will continue to struggle to get even nominal support from those factions, which are the most influential on the ground.
"having learned the lesson that force of arms trumps voter support."
I think they've learned the lesson that they would be overthrown if the West could do it, that no election will be honored if they win it.
This should not have come as a surprise, since much of the West has been saying that all along. Talk if of keeping the Syrian Army without Assad, and of forcing the secular groups into government. Only fools would not hear that for what it is.
With the idea that more and more rebels are opposed to democracy as such, or that the SNC isn't exactly a pro-democracy group, antiwar has reached a record low ( appeasing to organ eaters ). The NYT or washpost, or FP could do no better. My compliments to you all!