Much has been made recently of the growing size and influence of Al-Qaeda’s Syrian auxiliary Jabhat al-Nusra, especially compared to the relatively small, US-backed factions of Syrian rebels.
That disparity is getting worse all the time, with the latest reports claiming many hundreds of additional fighters, and in one case an entire faction in Raqqah claiming 750 fighters pledging loyalty to al-Qaeda.
The pro-US factions have become increasingly loud about their opposition to al-Qaeda, and seem to be gearing up for a formal war-within-a-war, but it’s increasingly apparent that this is a fight they’re not going to win, as the numbers and the reality on the ground point to the momentum overwhelmingly on the side of jihadists, not secularists.
Though the US insists its support will eventually revitalize the secular fighters, so far it doesn’t seem to be putting a dent in al-Qaeda’s momentum. As the two sides grow more and more at odds, expect the trend to increase of smaller factions choosing sides, and al-Qaeda seems much better positioned to attract and absorb them.
Humans, all around, don't know what they are doing. They suffer from mass confusion.
There are whole books on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality
Not to mention the physical limits imposed on any kind of computation. That's the fun of real world.
This reminds me of Angola 1975. The Soviets and Cubans supporting the MPLA, the US and South Africa supporting the FNLA, and the (later US-backed) UNITA supported by China. It was apparent from very early on that outside the oil-rich Cabinda enclave, the FNLA had no backing worth mentioning. When the MPLA and the Cubans made their willingness to negotiate with Gulf Oil explicit, what little backing the FNLA had collapsed, and the US walked away for several years.
Now here we are, once again the nominal backers of the weakest force on the ground, and our main strategic goals of involvement largely depending on the success of elements that despise the US. Just one more example of why minding our own business is our best approach, to recall the words of John Quincy Adams:
America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.
Considering the interest in the Mediterranean gas reservoir off the Syrian coast, you may be closer than you think.
Correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't our (US) Government taken the position since 9/11/01 that Al Qaeda is the greatest threat to our national security? And based upon that position, hasn't our Government expended two trillion dollars and thousands of US lives for the stated purpose of denying Al Qaeda (and affiliates of Al Qaeda) a "safe haven" in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere around the globe? And isn't it true that every Tuesday our President meets with top advisors to update and prioritize his "hit list" of Al Qaeda-related targets for US drone and other military attacks? Then how can our Government explain why it has effectively granted Al Qaeda groups a "safe haven" in Syria, where every day our mass media report the identity, activities and precise locations of notorious self-proclaimed Al Qaeda affiliates throughout Syria? I don't ordinarily advocate peace through war, but wouldn't US attacks on Al Qaeda in Syria clearly promote our national security interests and ultimately peace in Syria?
Are you guys questioning Kerry's integrity on "moderate rebels?"
"Moderate rebels" — is that an oxymoron, or what? How is someone who takes up arms against his own government, or someone else's, definable as "moderate?" Are rebellion and moderation even compatible, even without the arms? For example, are rebellious teenagers to be divided into "moderate," "militant," and "extreme" categories? Are we talking Newspeak?