The government has spent a significant amount of money to train the indigenous personnel in Syria. As with the political changes, it is not surprising that the money spent would not all go towards common interests or goals. What is disconcerting is when different parts of the government fund and arm different groups within the same country who then start fighting each other.
In February of this year, two such groups began to fight over territory within the region of Aleppo. These fights pitted the CIA-backed group, Fursan Al Haq against the Pentagon-backed Syrian Democratic forces. The result, as can be imagined, was nothing short of frustration for the US government.
The most frustrating part is that the two groups are not altogether that different in nature. They are both considered generally moderate rebel groups against the Syrian government, but they both have a singular desire – to retain key terrain that they possess. In this, the Fursan Al Haq group initiated fire on the Syrian Democratic forces as they moved through the region of their control.
These similar conflicts have been reported in another town as well, that of Azaz. Here, fighters and materials move between the Turkish border and Aleppo, making it a key avenue of approach, and therefore a popular place to control.
According to Rep. Schiff, trying to describe the complexities of the conflict in Syria is like playing a “three-dimensional [game of] chess.” On the one hand, we have different departments within the government focusing on different interpretations of progress within the region. We have a government that discusses red lines and uses existential terms such as bringing democracy back to the people, and we have a military which is essentially fighting a proxy war against the Syrian regime.
At the same time, on the opposite side of the spectrum, Syria is actively fighting a war against ISIS as well, and recently recaptured many key cities through the help of allies. This makes us want to cheer for the Syrian regime due to their successes, but also cringe because we are facilitating the bombing and attacks against them simultaneously.
So which idea is the best idea? When do we identify that a course of action has exhausted its use, and to make changes. Our foreign policy has led us to a point where we are participating financially and politically in an increasingly storied affair between multiple world powers with no clear solution. We cannot simply declare war on the Syrian government and destroy its military, unless we want to face off with its ally Russia. We cannot support the Syrian government because then we would be turning our back on the rebel groups we have encouraged and fostered. We cannot support ISIS against Syria, because of common sense. Finally, even if we can encourage and motivate the disparate rebel groups to overthrow the government, none of them seem to want to work together so we will simply be creating a fractured and segmented country.
So, now we have the pleasure of adding to that mix groups that the government is financing and arming fighting each other. It seems like our foreign policy is caught in a whirlpool and we cannot figure out how to get out.
Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.