Whilst I haven’t met them personally, this from the BBC (usually quite reliable on Foreign Correspondence matters) suggests that conceptually the FSA is a valid umbrella term for actual collective opposition forces on the ground:
The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed in August 2011 by army deserters based in Turkey, led by Col Riad al-Asaad. Its banner was soon adopted by armed groups that began appearing across the country. Despite this, the FSA’s leaders had little or no operational control over what was happening on the ground in Syria. The opposition’s Western and Gulf Arab backers sought to encourage a centralised rebel leadership and in December 2012 a number of brigades affiliated themselves to a newly-created Supreme Military Council (SMC). The SMC’s chief-of-staff, Gen Idris, wants it to be a more moderate and stronger alternative to the jihadist rebel groups in Syria.
The SMC has 30 members, six representing each of five “fronts” in Syria – Northern (Aleppo and Idlib), Eastern (Raqqa, Deir al-Zour and Hassaka), Western (Hama, Latakia and Tartus), Central (Homs and Rastan) and Southern (Damascus, Deraa and Suwaida). Each front has a civilian-military council and a commander. The opposition National Coalition describes Gen Idris as the commander of the FSA, however observers have said the FSA is simply a loose network of brigades rather than a unified fighting force. Brigades supposedly report through the chain of command to Gen Idris, but he is yet to assert operational control and serves more as a spokesman and conduit for foreign funding and arms shipments. SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
Thanks for the input, Hariod. Excellent information. The real issue is that according to the BBC as well about a third of the FSA share the ideology of ISIS and 60% share their goals.
Which boils down to …… what’s the difference. Except as a cover for the U.S.’s only interest of getting rid of Assad and replacing him with an American puppet.
On account of the Board of Exxon/Shell/Chevron gave Obomber his ‘marching orders’?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Slip sliding away
The near your destination
The more you’re slip sliding away ………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
It really says a lot.
Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah, Tubularsock agrees. It says that American interests are with ISIS…….. in part because we helped to create them!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know how they can deny it.
Leslie
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep! The writing is on the wall …….
LikeLike
Because he’s a sociopath?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh DrB. the simplest answer is ALWAYS the best!
LikeLike
Well, one reason is that the Free Syrian Army [al-Jaysh as-Sūrī al-Ḥurr] opposition forces rely on ISIS’ oil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So true Hariod but how do you explain that the FSA doesn’t exist?
LikeLike
Whilst I haven’t met them personally, this from the BBC (usually quite reliable on Foreign Correspondence matters) suggests that conceptually the FSA is a valid umbrella term for actual collective opposition forces on the ground:
The Free Syrian Army (FSA) was formed in August 2011 by army deserters based in Turkey, led by Col Riad al-Asaad. Its banner was soon adopted by armed groups that began appearing across the country. Despite this, the FSA’s leaders had little or no operational control over what was happening on the ground in Syria. The opposition’s Western and Gulf Arab backers sought to encourage a centralised rebel leadership and in December 2012 a number of brigades affiliated themselves to a newly-created Supreme Military Council (SMC). The SMC’s chief-of-staff, Gen Idris, wants it to be a more moderate and stronger alternative to the jihadist rebel groups in Syria.
The SMC has 30 members, six representing each of five “fronts” in Syria – Northern (Aleppo and Idlib), Eastern (Raqqa, Deir al-Zour and Hassaka), Western (Hama, Latakia and Tartus), Central (Homs and Rastan) and Southern (Damascus, Deraa and Suwaida). Each front has a civilian-military council and a commander. The opposition National Coalition describes Gen Idris as the commander of the FSA, however observers have said the FSA is simply a loose network of brigades rather than a unified fighting force. Brigades supposedly report through the chain of command to Gen Idris, but he is yet to assert operational control and serves more as a spokesman and conduit for foreign funding and arms shipments. SMC-aligned brigades retain separate identities, agendas and commands. Some work with hardline Islamist groups that alarm the West, such as Ahrar al-Sham, and al-Qaeda-linked jihadists.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the input, Hariod. Excellent information. The real issue is that according to the BBC as well about a third of the FSA share the ideology of ISIS and 60% share their goals.
Which boils down to …… what’s the difference. Except as a cover for the U.S.’s only interest of getting rid of Assad and replacing him with an American puppet.
LikeLike
Religious conviction?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, Muslims drink oil.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is this a multiple-guess test? I suck at those.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Funny Linda, your answer is correct!
LikeLiked by 1 person
What? How’d that happen? Oh dear, and just when I thought I might be catching on …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahh, the price of brilliance!
LikeLiked by 1 person