U.S. plan for foes of Assad in peril
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration's Syria policy was unraveling on Monday because the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its military command was in turmoil, with the status of its leader uncertain and its newly selected prime minister rejected by the group's military wing.
State Department officials said they still planned to work with the coalition, to which the United States has pledged $60 million, but analysts said the developments were another sign that the Obama administration had no workable Syria policy.
The opposition coalition, in its second incarnation, has been as beset by factionalism as its predecessor, the Syrian National Council, exacerbated this time by the meddling of foreign donors, analysts said. But, they said, the United States has no other entity to back in a war that pits the regime of President Bashar Assad against jihadist-dominated rebels.
“This is it. The U.S. can't reboot it a third time. If they can't make this work, they've got nothing,” said Joshua Landis, the director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
Opposition Coalition leader Mouaz al-Khatib announced his resignation on Sunday, citing his frustration with unspecified foreign powers. The coalition refused, and Khatib announced he would represent Syria this week at the Arab League.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.