Actually, The US Has A Strategy In Syria - And It's Starting To Work

One of the primary criticisms of U.S. President Barack Obama's plan for a limited attack on Syria in response to the large-scale chemical weapons use is that there is no long-term strategy in place for after bombs fall on Damascus.

But that's not true. There is a U.S. Syria strategy and it is showing signs of increasing success.

Former U.S. Army vice chief of staff General Jack Keane said he spoke with Republican senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey (R-S.C.) Graham, who were they were briefed by the president on Monday.

"What he has told the two senators is that he also intends to assist the opposition forces, so he is going to degrade Assad's military capacity and he is going to assist and upgrade the opposition forces with training assistance," Gen. Keane told BBC Radio.

Subsequently Graham, who recently said he cannot support limited strikes that "are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield," said: "There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition."

The U.S. plan: Degrade Assad, bolster opposition, curb jihadists

Last week Pentagon officials told The Wall Street Journal that the planned attack would "deter and degrade" President Bashar al-Assad's security forces. The key would be hitting various Damascus headquarters as well as some of the regime's six operable airports.

These airports are the "regime's nervous system," defected Air Force Colonel Hassan Hamada told Der Speigel.

Last week we detailed how doing so could curb Assad's relentless bombing of civilians, the flow of supplies from Iran and Russia, and the resupplying of Syrian troops in various areas.

The less obvious, and more long-term, part of the plan involves providing vetted parts the opposition with advanced weaponry, training them with Western advisors, and curbing the funding for jihadist groups.

The U.S. hasn't yet armed moderate fighters, but Saudi Arabia has.

The Institute of The Study of War's Liz O'Bagy, who made trips to various parts of Syria in the last year, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that moderate rebel groups "have recently been empowered by the influx of arms and money from Saudi Arabia and other allied countries, such as Jordan and France."

She added that these weapons "helped fuel a number of recent rebel advances in Damascus."

Interpreter Magazine Editor-in-Chief Michael D. Weiss, who also who covers Syria extensively, told Business Insider that the Saudi weapons had made it to East Ghouta, i.e., the site of the August 21 chemical weapons attack.

Last week Weiss reported that Saudi Arabia has been working closely with Jordan, the U.S., UK, and France to "set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application."

About 1,000 trainees have graduated from the program so far, according to Weiss, and one Syrian interviewed said his brother's martial skills improved immensely after finishing the program.

Furthermore, The New York Times reports that Obama told senators "the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria."

Lastly, something must be done to stem the flow of money to dominant jihadist groups, which Weiss calls "a scandal, but an easily remedied one."

This money comes primarily from Kuwait and Qatar, and Weiss writes that the U.S. Treasury Department can and should pressure Gulf countries " to eliminate whatever private or quasi-state fundraising mechanisms al Qaeda and other non-FSA-aligned extremists groups in Syria exploit to keep themselves in cash and bullets."

So even if one is opposed to American military retaliation for the August 21 chemical attack, or thinks that efforts to bolster moderate rebels have failed up to this point, that doesn't mean there isn't a clear American strategy in place against the Assad regime.