With pressure rising to undertake some sort of action to assist the besieged rebels in Libya, the Obama administration has begun drawing up options. It appears that no final decision has been made as of yet. So far, the options do not include the use of military force, the establishment of a no-fly zone, or direct engagement with the armed rebels on the ground, the so-called Free Syrian Army (FSA). Officials remain concerned about the destabilizing effect on the region of a prolonged civil war in Syria, and of the possibility of becoming embroiled in another Iraq. Rather, the administration is considering offering the means by which the rebels might organize themselves. For example, it would like to find ways to insert humanitarian aid and communications equipment into Syria while keeping open the possibility of negotiating with the government for a peaceful transition. If nothing else, the options represent a clear choice of sides within the civil conflict, and the possibility of further aid to the rebels might make a negotiated settlement more attractive to Damascus. Beyond that, the administration has made a decision not to stand in the way of other countries’ efforts to arm the rebels, although it will neither state that position publicly nor request anyone to provide arms.
In the meantime, other Arab states have emerged as potential arms providers. On February 27, Qatar, which led the move to suspend Syria’s membership in the Arab League, voiced its support for arming the Syrian rebels. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait endorsed the idea some days later. (Notably, these are all countries that are interested in curtailing the influence of Iran in the region and that tend to see Syria as an Iranian outpost.) On February 29, Libya offered the rebels $100 million, which at least some observers believe was financed by Qatar (which also helped arm and train the Libyan rebels last year). Other Arab states and the head of the Arab League, however, oppose the move. Russia and Iran continue to provide equipment and supplies to the Syrian armed forces, including antiaircraft weapons, and the Russians have complained that training camps for Syrian rebels already exist in Libya.
On March 1, the 310-member Syrian National Council (SNC)—the self-styled rebel coordinating group—formed a defense committee authorized to receive donations of arms. The SNC apparently sees control of the arms flow as a way to gain influence over the rebels on the ground, and it is not at all clear that the rebels will welcome their intermediation. Representatives of the FSA have already refused to accept the SNC’s defense committee as part of its chain of command. The fractious SNC has no organizational link to the armed FSA units, nor for that matter are the various rebel units really linked to each other. Even less is known about potential rivals of the SNC, such as the Syrian National Coordination Committee, local coordinating councils, and revolutionary councils that operate in the various cities of Syria.
The Obama administration views the lack of rebel unity as a significant obstacle to progress. It would like to see the SNC’s defense committee bolstered to the point at which it could function as a credible point of contact for the rebel movement and as a possible conduit for future military aid, should it come to that.
The United States remains concerned that the flow of arms could fuel further civil war, trigger a wider, regional war, or draw in extremist elements. Some U.S. officials have also questioned the ability of the Arab states to provide sufficient equipment to negate the Syrian army’s armored forces and artillery. Washington has focused on organizing multilateral economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and quiet efforts to encourage Assad supporters to break with the regime.
Some members of Congress, however, have called for further action immediately. Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have advocated direct military intervention—including the provision of arms, tactical intelligence, and direct air strikes. They believe an international coalition can be built to support such action.
