There's a big loophole in the US' newest military pact with Russia in Syria - 'and we're the ones likely to get screwed'
The text of the agreement, first obtained by The Washington Post's Josh Rogin, proposes that Russia and the US expand their military coordination in Syria "to defeat Jabhat al-Nusra and Daesh [ISIS] within the context of strengthening the Cessation of Hostilities [CoH] and supporting the political transition process outlined in UNSCR 2254."
"UNSCR 2254" refers to the United Nations Security Council Resolution adopted in December calling for an immediate end to attacks on civilian targets and a political settlement to the Syrian civil war.
The new JIG proposal calls on Russia to limit its air operations to targeting Al Qaeda in agreed-upon "designated areas." It also proposes that the Syrian army completely halt its aerial bombardments. But the text seems to explicitly allow Russia to "strike in areas where the opposition is dominant," even if Al Qaeda has only "some possible" presence there.
From the proposal (emphasis added):
Russia first intervened on behalf of its ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, in late September. Then, many analysts were quick to point out that Moscow was using the real or fabricated presence of some jihadist elements in opposition-held areas as an excuse to attack anti-Assad rebel groups, many of whom are backed by the US, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.
Noticing the trend, Washington called on Moscow to stop launching airstrikes in areas under non-jihadist rebel control. It has continued to do so for the better part of 10 months, largely to no avail.
Responding to criticism over its air raids - which have killed hundreds of civilians living in rebel-held territory, according to human-rights groups - Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said last month that the "continued mingling in places of the so-called moderate opposition" with Nusra is "complicating antiterrorist action."
Since then - likely in preparation for its impending military alliance with the Russians - the US has been urging rebel groups to leave areas where Nusra is present, so Russian warplanes can strike these terrorist elements without hitting the mainstream opposition.
"Congress needs to take a deep look at the US-RU mil cooperation plan," former Defense Intelligence Agency official Jeff White, now a defense fellow at the Washington Institute, wrote on Twitter. It's "a significant commitment of US mil and intel to a very questionable operation," he added.
Asked to elaborate in an email, White told Business Insider that he "would agree" that the proposal offers a "loophole" for the Russians to continue bombing the moderate opposition under the guise of targeting Nusra - and that, overall, "this is a bad proposal."
"It's kind of a diplomatic Hail Mary to rescue the Obama admin's flailing Syria policy," he said. "It's putting us in bed with the Russians, and we're the ones likely to get screwed. Its no surprise that there is opposition within the Defense Department - Kerry is asking the military to bail the administration out of 4 years of failed policy in Syria."
Speaking on the condition of anonymity, an intelligence official told Reuters that "it isn't clear" why the administration thinks it can enlist the Russians to support its goals in Syria.
The proposal amounts to "ignoring the fact that the Russians and their Syrian allies have made no distinction between bombing ISIS 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 official added.
'Cozying up to Moscow'
Moderate opposition groups have expressed concern that working with the Russians to weaken Nusra, which sometimes coordinates with the non-Islamist rebel groups to fight the regime, will inevitably strengthen Assad.
Washington's Sunni Arab allies - including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates - who arm and support many of Syria's opposition groups have apparently voiced similar fears.
"The president has said that Assad has got to go, and our allies, especially the Saudis, hold that view very strongly," a defense official told Reuters. "In fact, they keep asking us why we're cozying up to Moscow."
That complaint alone is unlikely to convince the Obama administration that it should not at least try to stall the jihadist group's momentum. Experts have noted, however, that Nusra's appeal might only grow if the US allows Russia to continue targeting opposition groups that are the only actors on the ground capable of challenging Nusra's influence.
There is "no underestimating how much it will, for many Syrians, prove Jabhat al-Nusra's narrative was 'right' all along," in its doubts that the US was supporting the opposition against Assad, Middle East expert Charles Lister told the Telegraph on Thursday.
Kyle Orton, a Middle East analyst at the Henry Jackson think tank, largely agreed.
"The deal is the culmination of the process where the US moves into alignment with the Assad regime, Iran, and Russia in Syria," Orton told the Telegraph. "The rebellion will feel, not unjustifiably, that this is the US taking sides against them."
"From the military standpoint, assuming Russia faithfully executed the scheme as proposed, it would add some additional operational and intelligence capabilities to the counterterrorism fight," said White, of the Washington Institute.
"But that's a big assumption, and there are high risks of being that closely associated with Russian mil ops," he added. "Russia and the regime fight a different war than we do."