The plan to arm and train moderate rebels in Syria is in danger of failing completely. The Daily Beast.

A fighter with an AK. The Daily Beast/AFP/Getty. 

As many as 1,000 rebels from the Pentagon's program to train fighters to use against ISIS are threatening to quit the mission. The Daily Beast. The moderate rebels, a key piece of Obama's anti-ISIS effort, are upset that they have been instructed to only target ISIS fighters and to ignore the regime. The leader of the rebels, Mustapha Sejari, also pointed out that by acting as a proxy for the United States would paint a target on his troops for every other faction in Syria, including the regime, ISIS, and al-Nusra. That is what happened to another secular army, al-Ezz Front, who was utterly defeated by al-Nusra in March. Sejari, and his Turkish sponsors are also upset that the United States has not committed to providing them air support. Without air cover, the rebels would be vulnerable to airstrikes from the regime. The program was falling well short of its goal of having 5000 troops as it is, but if Serjari and his men leave the program is doomed. Other rebels are claiming that their requests for airstrikes against ISIS have gone unheeded. The U.S. government is not even returning their phone calls. 

My Comment:

I'm not at all surprised that this program is falling apart. The idea that 5,000 secular rebels could make much of a difference in the three way battle between ISIS, al-Nusra and the Syrian Regime was always incredibly optimistic. At best they could weaken all three armies, but with so few fighters, even under the best of situations they would be outnumbered. 

And Sejari is right. Any secular group that is acting as a proxy for the United States will be targeted by all sides of the conflict. ISIS and al-Nusra will fight them just for existing and the regime will consider them worse traitors then the Jihadists. So the phantom 5000 troops, which is really more like 1000, would have to try and win against three enemies that all hate them and all outnumber them. And they would probably ignore each other for awhile just to crush them. 

The Syrian regime would love to see the last of these secular rebels wiped out. Once they are gone then all the propaganda that they put out about fighting against terrorists would become true. It's largely true already, but with no secular rebels left, the regime may finally be considered the best of bad options. It's about the only hope the regime has at this point. 

This debacle is pretty emblematic for the Obama administrations approach to foreign policy. It's a do nothing policy that is largely symbolic. Yes training a few rebels and sending in airstrikes will kill a few ISIS fighters but it won't do much to change the facts on the ground. Obama has always been more concerned about domestic policy then foreign policy and I don't think he honestly cares all that much about what happens in Syria and Iraq. He just wants to look like he is doing something while preparing to take credit or shift blame for what happens in the Middle East to the next president. 

There really does not seem to be any strategy at all to defeat ISIS, or for that matter, the Syrian regime or the al-Nusra front. I guess that makes a little bit of sense because between the three groups, none of them are aligned to our interests. But that doesn't explain why we have no strategy in Iraq either. All we have are half-measures and symbolic gestures, that do nothing. 

We could win the war against ISIS. It wouldn't be an easy fight, but it could be done. I'm half convinced that if we just threw the idea of reducing civilian casualties to the wind and just carpet bombed both countries we could probably win. That obviously wouldn't happen but if we drastically stepped up our air campaign or deployed ground troops to actually fight, then we could turn the tide. Nobody really wants to take that step but it's probably necessary at this point to win.  

Of course we could just take another option. When three enemies are fighting each other to the death, why not let them? Our only major allies in the fight, the Iraqi government, has largely been taken over by another enemy, the Iranians. Having them fight against ISIS weakens them as well. Of course, whoever wins in Syria and Iraq will end up with control of the countries, but they will be so weak that they might not be much of a threat anymore. If we do have to fight at that point, we will be in a better position after having bled themselves dry. 

But instead of those two reasonable options, we have a President that does just enough to said he did something but not enough to actually do anything. So we will waste billions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere for little or no effect in an effort that everyone knows will fail. Sure, ISIS may be defeated eventually, but it won't be because we trained 1000 rebels or sent in a few airstrikes. It will be because someone in the region will decide to step up and take ISIS on head to head, with a clear goal to defeat them and the will to do what needs to be done to defeat them. It might be the Iraqis, Iranians, the Syrians. It could be the Gulf States. It could even be Al-Qaeda's proxy, the al-Nusra front. Perhaps even the next president or even the leaders of Europe. But one thing is for sure. It will not be President Obama.