ISIS Strikes Deal With Moderate Syrian Rebels: Reports

[cali]

As the United States begins to deepen ties with moderate Syrian rebels to combat the extremist group ISIS, also known as the Islamic State, a key component of its coalition appears to have struck a non-aggression pact with the group.

According to Agence France-Presse, ISIS and a number of moderate and hard-line rebel groups have agreed not to fight each other so that they can focus on taking down the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Other sources say the signatories include a major U.S. ally linked to the Free Syrian Army.

The deal between ISIS and the moderate Syrian groups casts doubt over President Barack Obama's freshly announced strategy to arm and train the groups against ISIS.

<snip>

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/12/isis-deal-syria_n_5814128.html

[CJCRANE]

1. If ISIS takes down Assad

then we won't need to bomb them because "freedom".

Or we can bomb them afterwards because we won't need to ask permission.

[Bonhomme Richard]

2. It doesn't pass the smell test to me. I call BS.

Why in the world would the moderate rebels join with ISIS when they know:
1. the US is going to start bombing the shit out of ISIS
2. if ISIS did get rid of Assad then certainly the moderates would be next.

This could only be true if the moderates were not moderates.

[cali]

4. the moderates aren't largely particularly moderate.

and they've said repeatedly and flat out that their chief goal is ousting the Assad regime. Furthermore, both the so-called moderate groups and ISIS despise the Alawites. The so-called moderates have collaborated with ISIS in the past. The more you research, the more it will make sense.

[LittleBlue]

3. The US and Israel are really stupid

I said it when this began. Assad, for all his faults, is more moderate than the alternative. ISIS is the norm over there.

Not saying we should support Assad, but training forces to overthrow him, who eventually became radicalized, was a disastrous strategic error.

[cali]

5. ISIS is not "the norm" over there. Assad is not moderate, but yes, training forces

to overthrow him is/was a huge strategic mistake. (3 million refugees having fled Syria, and many others displaced within the country, belie your claim that ISIS is the norm)

[KoKo]

7. I found the article confusing...

Maybe because the news itself is confusing because of the different views of those Ryan Grim interviewed. For example this last part of the article:

Rhodes warned that a wrong move by the U.S. may lead to that precise perception and reality.

"If we were to try to run a play with Assad, we would ensure that they" -- all Sunni rebel groups -- "were turned against us, and in fact we would be taking sides in a sectarian war against one side. We need a Sunni partner in these countries," he said. "That's why we need this inclusive government [in Iraq] and that's why we need a Sunni opposition partner in Syria."

This news suggests that partners will be hard to find. Lister said the pact is a product of failed U.S.-led Western policy in Syria.

"This underlines serious frustration w. lack of US-backing to [Free Syrian Army] opposition in fight vs Assad," he tweeted.

If true, Landis said, the news of a ceasefire proves Washington does not know who it can support or trust within the fractured country.

"We don't know who the moderates are," Landis said. Describing a recent interview in which a Free Syrian Army commander told an Arab outlet that the U.S. wanted to make Syrian rebels "slaves," he added, "These guys are supposed to be our buddies?"

[Fred Sanders]

8. Fucking tough to have a strategy in Syria, isn't it?

[kentuck]

6. What does McCain think about this?

And the rest of them?