First of all, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
Primarily, the Free Syrian Army but there are a number of groups that full under the SMC structure that should qualify for support.
Yes the FSA seems a good candidate for it indeed. However, from your own link:
"Commanders of FSA-affiliated brigades and battalions do not receive strategic or tactical orders from FSA and SMC leaders such as Gen. Idriss but instead operate unilaterally in the control of their forces. The FSA leadership’s primary responsibility is to facilitate coordination between battalions. Gen. Idriss is officially the commander of the FSA but serves as more of a political leader than as a field commander."
The problem that rises immediately is how you, US or other forces are planning to assure that the supply of weapons and funds would not be given also to the various Islamist movements (note that i'm even not talking about Jabhat al-Nusra but of groups like Ahrar al-Sham). There is no coherent structure to FSA and as well as to a lot of other groups involved - the "battalion" commanders on the ground are those that are making the decisions not their supposed leaders.
These commanders on the ground would decide with whom to fight/not to fight, to whom they give/don't give weapons.
No way of knowing. There is no Gallup poll data on this. If you want a crude yardstick, the religious demographic breakdown is probably the most reliable bet. 75% Sunnis, so a crude ballpark figure is ~75% support the removal of Assad and hence support the aims of the FSA.
That is correct.
The problem is that they support the removal of al-Assad period, they support the aims of FSA, or of other Sunnah groups as long as those correlate to their own world views, agendas and ideas regarding Syria's future.
Again, there's absolutely no way of knowing. We don't even know who's going to win in elections in stable countries where we know the candidates like Iranian presidential election that occurred today. Second of all, the FSA is not officially ideological - I don't believe they officially have any intentions for the government to replace Assad or whether there would even be elections. Their goal is purely to military - to defeat Assad.
Correct, again.
Thus, rises a problem of political and ideological vacuum after the fall of al-Assad.
Taking in account the large Sunni population, the large funds influx from countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and their interests in the region and its future), the past experience of past "Arab spring" movements, the large amount of smaller groups like the Kurds with strictly sectarian interests, etc - in my opinion this vacuum would be soon filled with Sunnah dominated Islamist parties (backed by Qatar/Saudi Arabia) leading the ME towards a Sunnah dominated region.
I also can think of a lot of sentiments of revenge that would be directed towards the ex-Assad supporters, Shia, Alawites, Christians, etc...after the fall of the regime.
The distribution will be centralized through the SMC which will distribute supplies to vetted groups, which will not only give the more moderate groups a stronger influence relative to the extremist groups, but it will also serve to incentivize moderation and punish extremism.
Like i stated above it could have worked if these groups had strong internal command structure- unfortunately they don't.
Moreover groups like Jabhat al-Tahrir that are directly affiliated with the rebels general command (and no i don't believe in existence of moderate Islamists - there are moderate Muslims, but not moderate Islamists), and Ahrar al-Sham that has relations with the general rebels command are bound to receive the weapons and the funds together with the more moderate Muslim fractions.
In conclusion, I don't see any reason to provide military equipment funds to leaders that have no control over the situation on the ground, or to forces that are affiliated and working with Islamists sponsored by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Now. I have some questions for you as a supporter of "do nothing".
One remark though;
I am not a supporter of "doing nothing" and never was - I would rather prefer to see a full scale US military intervention, with long and coherent US policy regarding the future of Syria and the ME - in order to secure the future of my own country (Israel), the ME, and to prevent the spreading of Shia and Sunnah Islamism and extremism. However, I am well aware of the fact that any current US administration would not dare to do such thing due to political and economical reasons.
Hence, I would much rather prefer if US would not do "half jobs" under the flag of freedom, while factually supporting the rise of Sunnah Islamists in Syria.
If you (or anyone else) have any doubts regarding my position on the matter - I already mentioned it in another thread in the ME forum:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/162301-u-n-investigators-say-most-syria-rebels-not-seeking-democracy-2.html#post1061873653
Now to the questions;
1) Let's say the rebels win and manage to establish "democratic" elections in Syria, who do you think would win in these elections?
By my humble opinion, we would see the same picture as we saw in other countries i.e the rise of Sunnah Islamism on the backs of moderate/western oriented Sunni Muslims, with large support from Qatar and Saudi Arabia.
2) What do you propose be done in the event that Assad drastically ramps up the use of chemical weapons on the Syrian people - mirroring his strategy of "use tepidly, gauge international reaction, the increase dramatically when the intn'l community turns a blind eye" which he has used again and again first with artillery bombardments, then air strikes, then SCUD missiles, and now appears to be using with chemical weapons? Nothing?
I already stated above what i propose of doing - full scale US intervention - seisure and/or destruction of all chemical weapons.
3) What do you propose be done to resist the influence of extremist jihadist groups - which has been allowed to grow under the existing policy of non-intervention? Nothing? What do you propose be done to prevent such extremist groups from getting their hands on Assad's chemical weapons in the even of Assad's fall? Nothing?
a. Political leverage on Saudi Arabia, Qatar forcing them to stop supporting & financing the different Islamist groups.
b. Working with various countries to prevent the influx of foreign fighters - from Russia, Europe, etc...
c. Full scale blockade, military and political intervention in the region - followed by a coherent long term policy regarding the future of Syria.
d. More could be done...but these are the main points.
4) What do you propose be done about the increasing spillover of sectarian violence and refugees that threaten to destabilize and ignite civil wars in Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq - which has proven to be the case as the war is allowed to drag on under the existing policy of non-intervention? Nothing?
5) What do you propose be done to prevent the Syrian war from languishing on indefinitely with no central government gaining the upper hand dooming Syria to become a Somalia-esque failed state and a breeding ground for Al Qaeda and extremism? What do you propose be done to prevent Syria from fracturing into one or more states along sectarian lines? Nothing?
6) What do you propose be done about the worsening humanitarian crisis? We've all read the latest UN casualty numbers - nearly 100,000. That's how many were killed in Bosnia & Herzegovina. 1.5 million refugees across borders, 4.5 million Syrians displaced internally, widespread hunger, emerging reports of mass rape and human rights violations...
You're making the same mistake that all non-interventionists make. Doing nothing doesn't mean nothing happens - it means something else happens. You are absolutely right that there are risks and concerns about intervening. What you fail to recognize is that non-intervention actually does not mitigate those risks - on the contrary, it not only leaves us exposed to many of those same risks you link to intervention (the growing influence of extremists, how to manage the continued power struggle and, likely, violence that will erupt among opposition groups following the fall of Assad, etc.) while at the same time exposing us to even more risks associated with allowing the war to languish on (the worsening of the already dire humanitarian crisis, the flaring of violence and destabilization among already fragile neighboring ME nations, etc.).
Mark my words, intervening in Syria is going to be a terrible path. But not intervening would be even more terrible.
Again i hope you don't mind me quoting myself, but your questions and assertions were developed from a false premise that i don't support US's intervention in the region so i have little to add, except this...
"Full scale blockade, military and political intervention in the region - followed by a coherent long term policy regarding the future of Syria."
Personally, I'm not convinced the supply of small arms or even anti-tank weapons will tip the stalemate in the favor of the rebels at this point (a year ago I believe it would have but not anymore). I think Obama is going to have to face another decision further down the road whether to commit to more involvement. By that I mean establishing no-fly zones, targeted air strikes of Assad forces, and expansive military training programs of the FSA akin to what was done for the Bosniaks and Croats.
It would probably depend on the amounts of weapons/funds that would be supplied to the "rebels", on the willingness of al-Assad to survive and protect his supporters, and on the aspirations of other countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar regarding the amount of support each and every one of them would be willing and able to provide to the fractions involved in the conflict.
As I already stated, I see the current US support for non existent "rebels" as only a tool that cultivates the ground for the various Isalmists and Jihadist movements to grow upon and flourish - eventually it would lead to a much more dangerous situation for the ME and especially for my own country.
And I would prefer the US to do a full job/or not at all, instead of doing themselves, the ME, and the world a "favor" by doing a "half job" that would only worsen the situation on the ground.
Cheers,
Fallen.