US plans joint Syria attacks with Russia
EIGHT-PAGE LEAKED DOCUMENT PROPOSES JOINT BOMBING OPERATIONS AND COMMAND-AND-CONTROL HEADQUARTERS TO FIGHT TERROR
DUBAI T he United States is expected to offer Russia a new military pact against Daesh and Al Qaida in Syria, according to a leaked US proposal that would signal a change in US policy in Syria that has previously opposed Russia’s role in Syria.
The document calls for joint bombing operations, a command-and-control headquarters and indirect coordination of air strikes with the regime of Bashar Al Assad.
The objective of the “Joint Implementation Group” is to defeat terror groups like Al Qaida and Daesh.
“I’m going to Moscow, meeting with President (Vladimir) Putin tonight,” US Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters. “We’ll have plenty of time to talk about it and I’ll give you all a sense of where we are.”
Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said only joint US-Russian efforts were key to fighting terrorism in the region.
Washington has previously rebuffed Moscow’s requests for military cooperation, accusing the Russians of using anti-terrorism objectives as a pretext for protecting Al Assad’s position.
Kerry faces strong opposition from defence officials who argue that Washington and Moscow have diametrically opposite objectives.
“It isn’t clear why the secretary of state thinks he can enlist the Russians to support the administration’s goals in Syria,” said one US official.
“He’s ignoring the fact that the Russians and their Syrian allies have made no distinction between bombing [Daesh] and killing members of the moderate opposition, including some people that we’ve trained,” the official said. “Why would we share intelligence and targeting information with people who’ve been doing that?”
The targeting problem is compounded by the fact that rebels groups often operate in close proximity with one another and at times have fought both for and against one another.
T he US is offering Russia a new military pact against Daesh and Al Qaida in Syria, according to a leaked US proposal. If finalised, the arrangement could dramatically alter America’s role in the Arab country’s five-year civil war. The document published by
The Washington Post calls for joint bombing operations, a command-and-control headquarters and other synchronised efforts. US and Russian officials with expertise in intelligence, targeting and air operations will “work together to defeat” the extremist groups, the eight-page paper states.
Such a partnership would undercut months of US criticism of Russia’s military intervention in Syria. And it would put the US alongside Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s chief international backer, despite years of American demands for Al Assad to leave power.
Russia would be getting what it has wanted since intervening in Syria in late September: An international alliance of sorts. Washington previously rebuffed Moscow’s requests for military cooperation, accusing the Russians of using antiterrorism objectives as a pretext for protecting Al Assad’s position. The US also says Syria’s military and Russia’s air force have repeatedly violated truces with moderate rebel groups backed by the US or its allies.
Jordan headquarters
The proposed, US-Russian “Joint Implementation Group” would be headquartered near Amman, Jordan. At its most basic level, the former Cold War foes would share intelligence and targeting information. But they “should coordinate procedures to permit integrated operations,” if the US and Russia decide such operations are in their interests.
Russia would confine air strikes to vetted targets and not let Syrian forces bomb “designated areas.” Some exceptions apply. The military partnership is part of what US officials are terming a final offer to Moscow. In exchange, the US wants the
Russians to pressure Al Assad into ending a bombing campaign against moderate militant groups and civilian populations, and allowing unfettered aid to besieged, rebel-held areas.
Washington also wants Russia’s help in forcing Al Assad to start a political transition that would ultimately end his family’s four-decade hold over the country.
Russia supports the vague idea of “transition,” but has never publicly spoken of Al Assad having to resign.
The proposal would address one of the most persistent problems with efforts to enforce a ceasefire in Syria: Al Nusra Front, Al Qaida’s Syria affiliate. The group is engaged in a variety of local alliances with other rebel groups the US and its Arab allies want shielded by the socalled cessation of hostilities. And Nusra’s fighters are often embedded with such groups on the battlefield or move between various fighting formations.
For that reason, the US has almost entirely avoided bombing Al Nusra targets in recent months. Russia hasn’t hesitated. But in taking out Al Nusra forces, the US says Russia also has killed hundreds of moderate, anti-Al Assad fighters and civilians - undermining chances for peaceful diplomacy.
Americans wary
Much of Washington is wary about working too closely with Russia. The US doesn’t want to be seen as entrenching Al Assad, whom American officials have referred to as a “butcher” and “mass murderer.” Russia’s bombers also have attacked anti-Al Assad rebel groups that have received weapons, training and other forms of support from the US and allies such as Saudi Arabia - whose foreign minister Kerry met in Washington earlier this week.
And a dissent cable signed by 51 State Department officials last month showed a siseable part of America’s diplomatic establishment believing a US military response against Al Assad’s forces was necessary.
Opposition to the administration’s newest Syria plan is shared by a significant number of officials at the State Department, Pentagon and US intelligence community.
But beyond reaching out to Russia, the administration has few other options right now. Suggestions of US force don’t carry much weight, given the various, unfulfilled threats throughout the war — from Obama’s declaration five years ago that Al Assad’s days were “numbered” to his vow of a military response if chemical weapons were used, only to back down in 2013.