Implications of U.S. Military Support for Syrian Rebels
Video Transcript:
Roughly 20 loyalist soldiers were killed in a rebel attack targeting a military airport in western Damascus June 16. Such attacks against loyalist forces are what the United States hopes to encourage as the Obama administration approved the CIA shipment of weapons to the rebels. However, this decision will not necessarily translate into a decisive military advantage for the rebels on the battlefield. The results of the weapons shipment will depend greatly on the type and quantity of the weapons delivered. The U.S. decision to become more involved, however, could lead to the administration endorsing shipments of greatly desired advanced and heavy weaponry from GCC states. Despite the fact that the United States, Britain and France, as well as many GCC states, are on board with arming the rebels, there is still much disagreement by foreign powers as to how to manage the Syria crisis, which will likely manifest during the G-8 summit.
Prior to President Obama’s decision June 13 to authorize direct military support to the rebels, the United States had only supplied humanitarian and non-lethal aid. Although this announcement is a notable first step, the actual battlefield results the shipments will achieve are unknown and will depend on the type and scale of the weapons. It is likely that the shipments will begin with small arms and non-lethal weaponry such as body armor, night vision goggles and armored vehicles. A previously planned shipment of non-lethal supplies, which had been held up, has now been released and will likely be the first shipment to arrive in Syria. In addition to small arms, future shipments might include non-sophisticated anti-armor weapons, which would be beneficial in the face of the regime’s often overwhelming use of armor against the rebels. Although these weapons would help mitigate regime advances, the shipments alone will not give the rebels the decisive upper hand on the battlefield.
That type of battlefield advantage couldn’t be achieved without the influx of sophisticated man-portable air defense systems, or MANPADS, and other advanced heavy weaponry. The rebels have been requesting these weapons since the onset of the uprising, and although the rebels have been able to acquire some anti-aircraft weaponry, across the board these weapons are not particularly prevalent.
There are many legitimate concerns associated with providing such weapons to the rebels, as they could end up in the wrong hands and would likely remain in the region flowing from one militant group to the next for years to come. Despite these constraints, if the United States decided it wanted to send these weapons or even endorse the shipment of such weapons from willing GCC countries, then there could be a dramatic shift in momentum in favor of the rebels.
There are many unknowns associated with the U.S. announcement to provide weapons to Syrian rebels, but what we do know is that the supply of weapons from the United States, Britain and France will help the rebels to some degree, as any weapons are beneficial. Although Western powers are generally in alignment when it comes the Syrian conflict, there is still much to be debated. And outside the realm of the West, there are even more hotly contested proposals for Syrian policies, which are sure to be discussed during this week’s G-8 summit but will not likely be resolved any time soon.
