WASHINGTON — Despite years of diplomacy and a CIA operation to vet and train moderate rebels, the U.S. finds itself without a credible partner on the ground in Syria as it bombs the Islamic State terrorist group. That’s a potentially serious flaw in its strategy to ultimately defeat the militants.
Obama administration officials have long conceded that airstrikes alone won’t drive the Islamic State terrorists from their strongholds across Syria and Iraq, but it also has ruled out the use of American ground troops. The U.S. strategy to crush the terrorists rests on the use of local proxy forces and hinges on plans to use $500 million and a base in Saudi Arabia to build an army of moderate Syrian rebels.
The ground-force component has always been seen as a challenge in Syria, but the difficulty has become clearer in recent days.
Officials acknowledge that the U.S. doesn’t trust any Syrian rebel groups enough to coordinate on the air campaign, despite attempts by some pro-Western fighters to pass along intelligence about Islamic State locations.
The CIA has secretly trained and is paying more than 1,000 moderates to help achieve the administration’s stated objective of overthrowing Syrian president Bashar Assad, U.S. officials have said.
Those fighters have been gaining ground against Assad in southern Syria and, in some places, are fighting the Islamic State terrorists, said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria.
The CIA-funded fighters have proved reliable and have made modest gains, said a congressional aide who has been briefed on the matter. The aide spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive intelligence.
Some analysts have questioned the fighters’ loyalty and competence. Either way, it’s clear their impact has not been decisive.
“Most of these groups have worked closely with Jabat al Nusra at some point in the last year or so,” said Joshua Landis, the Arabic-speaking director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, referring to the head of Syria’s al-Qaeda spinoff. “Some of them have worked hand in glove with (the Islamic State). For Americans to call a sit-down and say ‘Here’s where we’re bombing’ doesn’t make any sense. We don’t trust these guys.”
American officials don’t go that far in public remarks, but they have been fairly blunt.
“We don’t have a willing, capable, effective partner on the ground inside Syria right now,” Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said last week. “It’s just a fact.”
John Allen, the retired Marine general in charge of coordinating the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State terrorists, said Wednesday that “at this point, there is not formal coordination with” the U.S.-backed moderate rebels known as the Free Syrian Army.
That approach has infuriated rebels, fueling mistrust on both sides. The commander of a moderate rebel brigade in the northern Aleppo province, who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Thabet, called the U.S.-led airstrikes “pointless and self-serving.”
As Americans have bombed Islamic State positions elsewhere, Syrian government forces have advanced in northern Aleppo province, Abu Thabet said. Moderate factions like his are trapped between Islamic State fighters on one side and government forces on another, and the U.S. has not once hit the Islamic State along the 12-mile front it occupies against his group, he said.
Abu Thabet said rebels have tried to pass along information about Islamic State positions to the U.S. military but have received no response.
“The Americans are kidding themselves,” he said. He then praised the Nusra Front — underscoring the sort of concerns that bedevil U.S. policymakers.
Rep. Mike Pompeo, a Kansas Republican and former Army officer who serves on the House intelligence committee, said he heard during a recently concluded trip to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey a widespread “fear that the Americans’ stated objectives aren’t consistent with our actions to date.”
