“That’s why it’s important to bolster those forces within the Syrian opposition that are not extremists.”
Declared U.S. policy is to train and support “moderate” rebels in Syria as part of a strategy to defeat ISIS elements there, in conjunction with complementary support for Iraqi forces battling the group, and with air strikes targeting ISIS in both countries.
How that support for the Syrian rebels will aid their fight against the Assad regime, however, is the subject of debate. Administration officials say it should make the rebels better prepared to defend themselves against the regime’s forces, but also stress that there is no military solution to the civil war.
When he first laid out his anti-ISIS strategy last September, Obama drew a distinction between pursuing a military response to ISIS and a “political solution” to the Syrian civil war.
The diplomatic effort to end the civil war has focused on what is called the Geneva process. Talks in the Swiss city led in June 2012 to an agreement on negotiating an end to the conflict, based on the establishment of a transitional governing body on the basis of “mutual consent” between regime and rebel representatives.
But conspicuously absent in that agreement, dubbed “Geneva I,” was any reference to Assad’s future. The U.S. said afterward that it was self-evident the opposition would never agree to a future role for Assad, but Russia rejects that view.
Further talks, “Geneva II,” were held in early 2014, but failed to break the deadlock. In late January Russia hosted talks aimed at reviving the stalled initiative, but the main Western-backed opposition coalition refused to take part.
(CNSNews)