Thank you for your post.
The Gazette is definitely not alone in
publishing the story, and both papers make a point to note that this information was from a "classified report," which is important, since classified information like that would not have been leaked for no reason.
There does seem to be a reason for that though. Especially when coupled with this:
American officials have been trying to understand why hard-line Islamists have received the lion’s share of the arms shipped to the Syrian opposition through the shadowy pipeline with roots in Qatar, and, to a lesser degree, Saudi Arabia. The officials, voicing frustration, say there is no central clearinghouse for the shipments, and no effective way of vetting the groups that ultimately receive them.
Those problems were central concerns for the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, David H. Petraeus, when he traveled secretly to Turkey last month, officials said.
The C.I.A. has not commented on Mr. Petraeus’s trip, made to a region he knows well from his days as the Army general in charge of Central Command, which is responsible for all American military operations in the Middle East. Officials of countries in the region say that Mr. Petraeus has been deeply involved in trying to steer the supply effort, though American officials dispute that assertion.
One Middle Eastern diplomat who has dealt extensively with the C.I.A. on the issue said that Mr. Petraeus’s goal was to oversee the process of “vetting, and then shaping, an opposition that the U.S. thinks it can work with.” According to American and Arab officials, the C.I.A. has sent officers to Turkey to help direct the aid, but the agency has been hampered by a lack of good intelligence about many rebel figures and factions.
One possible reason for releasing that type of classified information would be to garner support for a greater CIA role in the vetting process.
And ultimately we are left with little other choice, but to do just that.
There is hard evidence that Assad has been murdering thousands of his own citizens in ever increasing numbers, and the US and other parties who have a public stake in supporting basic human rights cannot just stay silent about that.
If all support for the rebels was cut off, there would be less and less able to stop Assad from what he has termed "cleansing" the country of "terrorists." With the term "terrorist" being used to define
anyone who is suspected of not supporting the regime.
A designation that has included thousands of innocent men, women, and children.
The groups that have bothered to keep count of the number of people that have been killed in the conflict put over 70% of the deaths as civilians. A large portion of whom have been killed in government "cleansings."
People living in their houses when they are bombed by artillery and air fire. Military age men rounded up in government sweeps. Families of people suspected of not supporting the regime. Citizens living in cities suspected of not supporting the regime. All killed in the government "cleansings" of "terrorists."
Were the government to roll through Eastern Syrian unopposed while being allowed to be unaccountable for any of their actions by their allies short of using chemical/biological weapons, the death toll could quickly jump from a third of 100,000 to a few hundred thousand casualties or more.
Yet the US and others cannot ignore the extremists in Syria either.
Increased vetting would help, but would not solve the problem.
One of the best things that could solve the problem would be a negotiated settlement. Because in the end, neither side will want the extremists there after the war.
A Russian switch to helping to end the war instead of sustaining it would bring about a solution. As would an Alawite revolt against the Assad regime. Or possibly a negotiated settlement from Brahimi.
However, in my view, a move towards peace is the best way, and maybe the only way to seriously address the extremist problem.
So what do you think should be done about it?
I have included part of my post from the AQ thread that talks about just this:
Syria is not the same as Mali, Somalia, or Yemen, and any official AQ government structure that has been set up in those countries would not be accepted by the Syrian public. The FSA knows that the Syrian people would never accept a government that includes AQ elements, and they know that their support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar is dependent on their independence from the group. The FSA clashes with AQ groups, and the FSA killings of some of their leaders represent the diametrically opposed goals of the FSA and AQ.
Assad uses AQ as an excuse to carry out his own mass terrorism campaign, but ironically it will be the inevitable fall of the Assad regime that will be the biggest blow to AQ in the country.
While the goals of the FSA and AQ are diametrically opposed, the FSA does not currently have the reserves and capability to open up a second major front in their war against the extremists created by the vacuum of power from Assad's mass killing campaign against his own people.
It will not be until the FSA is able to stop Assad's forces from killing tens of thousands of Syrians on top of the reported 30,000+ people in Syria that have already died when they will really be able to take back their country for all Syrians.
At that point, AQ will largely be remembered as an excuse that the former Assad regime used to needlessly kill massive numbers of his own people, and will have little influence on the future of the new Syrian government.
