Fighter With 'Vetted Moderate' Syrian Rebels Tells L.A. Times They Fight Alongside Al-Qaeda
Last week here at PJ Media, I reported on the ongoing relations between the U.S.-backed "vetted moderate" Free Syrian Army and ISIS. I also noted that, at this time last year, the received wisdom of the Washington, D.C. foreign policy establishment was that the Syrian rebels were largely moderate.
Now, a report in this past Sunday's L.A. Times from the frontlines in Syria finds that another "vetted moderate" rebel group, Harakat Hazm -- which has received anti-tank missiles from the U.S. -- has been working with al-Qaeda's official Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra: a U.S.-designated terrorist organization. (HT: Tim Furnish and Tom Joscelyn.)
As Al-Akhbar reported back in May, in addition to having U.S. backing, Harakat Hazm is also backed by the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, and Qatar.
As the L.A. Times reporter rides with two U.S.-backed and armed Harakat Hazm fighters, the topic of conversation turns to Jabhat al-Nusra:
Harakat Hazm, for example, has struggled with being regarded as a U.S. pawn and labeled as secular in the midst of an opposition movement that has grown increasingly Islamist.
"Inside Syria we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us," Zeidan said, referring to an Al Qaeda-linked rebel group that has been designated by the U.S. as a terrorist organization. Then he smiled and added, "But Nusra doesn't fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra."
But the L.A. Times reporter then immediately adds:
In July, eight West-backed rebel brigades -- all recipients of military aid -- released a statement of "rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination" with Al Nusra Front.
But at the same time Harakat Hazm was supposedly releasing a statement of "rejection of all forms of cooperation and coordination" with Nusra, it signed a statement of alliance with Nusra to prevent the Assad regime from advancing into Aleppo. The alliance statement was published on Twitter:
What the statement and the Aleppo alliance demonstrate is something that I and others have been contending all along: the so-called Syrian rebels given the State Department's "vetted moderate" imprimatur have been playing a double-game. And the Obama administration, the foreign policy establishment and the establishment media have all gladly played along with our "vetted moderate" Syrian rebel allies.
When Liz Sly of the Washington Post interviewed the commander of Harakat Hazm as the first group to receive anti-tank missiles from the U.S., he gave a lukewarm, two-faced statement when asked about Nusra:
LS: You have already participated in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. What are your relations with Jabhat al-Nusra?
AA: Jabhat al-Nusra is a military formation, a fighting battalion that exists on the ground like any other. We have no strong or meaningful relationship with them. They fight on their fronts, and we fight on ours.
LS: What do you think of them?
AA: They hold responsibility for bringing ISIS fighters to Syria from across the world. This was a mistake committed against the Syrian people. I think of them as a group of people fighting to topple the regime, but if they change their ideology to resemble that of ISIS or bring death and destruction upon the Syrian people, then we won't allow it.
So they are responsible for bringing ISIS to Syria, but they are fighting to topple the regime.
On the same day that interview appeared, a policy analysis published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy hailed Harakat Hazm as "Rebels Worth Supporting," going so far as to say that Hazm was "a model candidate for greater U.S. and allied support, including lethal military assistance."
A fair question at this point: how is it that the Obama administration and the D.C. foreign policy establishment continue to allow themselves to be deluded by the "vetted moderate" Syrian rebel narrative, when all of the facts show that U.S. policy is Syria is built on lies and self-deception?
It's not that they're half-wrong, or that that the facts are subject to counter-interpretation. They're flat-out wrong. And the result is serious weaponry being given directly by the U.S. to these groups.
And where is Congress in all this?