Behind the US gambit to seek new anti-Assad leadership in Syria

The US pulled its support from the opposition Syrian National Council, based in Paris, this week – a signal that the Obama administration plans to put more stock in rebel forces fighting the Assad regime on the ground.

Asmaa Waguih/Reuters
Residents look at Free Syrian Army fighters as they arrive to fight the pro-government forces, in Haram town, Idlib Governorate, Wednesday, October 28.

With the Obama administration giving up on the exile-heavy Syrian National Council and seeking creation of a more inclusive and representative opposition leadership, some of Syria’s rebels wondered aloud, “What took them so long?”

But the truth is that Washington has become increasingly disenchanted with the Syrian National Council, or SNC – exasperated by infighting among leaders in the Paris-based organization even as rebels fighting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and local leaders stuck out the war on the ground. But it had held back from real censure in the hope the SNC would right its own ship.

That changed abruptly Wednesday, when Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in effect handed the SNC a pink slip. She said the US is looking for a new set of leaders to take Syria’s helm into what the US insists is the coming post-Assad period.

“This cannot be an opposition represented by people who have many good attributes but have in many instances not been inside Syria for 20, 30, or 40 years,” Secretary Clinton said in the Croatian capital of Zagreb. “There has to be a representation of those who are on the front lines fighting and dying today to obtain their freedom.”

From the outset of the rebellion in Syria against the Assad regime 19 months ago, the US said it was up to Syrians to choose their own leadership to fight, and eventually replace, Mr. Assad. But the Obama administration has opted now to take a more active role in the creation of a new opposition leadership body for two reasons (besides weakness and dysfunction displayed by the SNC). 

One is that the rebellion has shifted into a civil war. That has raised the profile of the fighters and rebel military leaders on the ground on the one hand, but it has also put a direct spotlight on the need for an opposition leadership that includes all of Syria’s factions and ethnic groups. Without such inclusivity, the next leadership would be at grave risk of overseeing the country’s disintegration.

The second is that the continued fighting and the breakdown of authority have opened the door to Islamist extremists, who appear to be assuming a greater role in the fight to oust Assad. Clinton was upfront about those concerns, saying, “We also need an opposition that will be on record strongly resisting the efforts by extremists to hijack the Syrian revolution.”

Formation of this new opposition leadership, in which the SNC would play at best a minority role, is the objective of a conference set to be held in Doha, Qatar, next week. Clinton said the US had submitted “names and organizations” of Syrians it believes should be part of any new “leadership structure.”

Representatives of the Syrian opposition and their international supporters already tried, at similar talks in Cairo in June, to come up with a new “leadership structure.” But that meeting degenerated into recriminations and even fistfights.

The question may now be whether, after another four months of war and more public prodding from Washington, the disparate factions fighting Assad can come together.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.