Originally posted by the Voice of America.
Voice of America content is produced by the Voice of America,
a United States federal government-sponsored entity, and is in
the public domain.


                West Still Debating Whether to Arm Syrian Rebels

   by Andre deNesnera

   Syrian government warplanes, tanks and heavy artillery continue to
   pound opposition forces that are essentially fighting back with light
   weapons. The disparity in forces has prompted a debate whether the
   United States and other western countries should provide weapons to the
   insurgents.

   The Syrian army, estimated to have 200,000 to 250,000 troops, is by
   regional standards a highly capable military force.

   ''For decades, first the Soviet Union and now Russia delivered weapons
   to the Syrian army. These included thousands of tanks, helicopters, jet
   fighters, heavy artillery, armored personnel carriers and ammunition.

   Syrian opposition armed with light weapons

   John Pike, head of Globalsecurity.com, an Internet research firm, says
   facing a well-equipped Syrian army are insurgents essentially armed
   with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled anti-tank
   rockets.

   ''"What they do not have is helicopters," said Pike. "What they do not
   have is tanks. And that's basically what the Syrian government is
   relying on to suppress this insurrection: this military imbalance that
   the rebels have light weapons and the government has heavy weapons."
   Analysts say much of the weaponry used by the insurgents has either
   been captured from military depots, taken from soldiers of the Syrian
   army who have defected, or purchased on the black market. Reports also
   indicate that countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are either
   providing funds to the rebels to purchase weapons or are directly
   supplying them with arms.

   Calls to arm or intervene

   ''
   Several western nations, including the United States and Great Britain,
   have been providing the Syrian opposition with non-lethal assistance -
   such as communications equipment, medical supplies and
   water-purification kits.

   But some experts and U.S. politicians are calling for more. One of them
   is Senator John McCain, who spoke on the Senate floor March 6.

   "Time is running out," he said. "Assad's forces are on the march.
   Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other
   opposition groups is necessary."

   Senator McCain and others say the Syrian opposition needs the weapons
   to continue the fight. And he even calls for western air strikes
   against Syrian military forces to bolster the rebels.

   Arguments against arming Syrian opposition

   But John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is wary
   about providing weapons and other assistance to the Syrian rebels.

   "Even those in Congress who advocate giving lethal or non-lethal
   assistance to the opposition are reluctant to identify precisely to
   which leaders we should give it," Bolton said. "When people who want a
   broader American involvement can't identify the right people to give it
   to - that really makes me nervous."

   Bolton gives another reason not to arm the rebels.

   "There is a very real risk that as bad as the Assad regime has been,
   the terrorists and radicals inside the opposition could capture control
   of the opposition and in retaliation for decades of oppression by the
   Assad regime, conduct their own executions and mass killings against
   Alawites, Christians, Druze, Sunnis who supported the regime," he said.

   Bolton does "not want to have American weapons or American-trained
   leaders involved in such a bloodbath."

   Difficult to disarm militias

   Nadil Shehadi, with London's Chatham House, says arming the rebels
   "will backfire, because all these groups that are being armed now,
   whether for a good cause or not, will have to be disarmed later - and
   that will be a very difficult process."

   Shehadi favors a coordinated military action against Bashar al-Assad
   "because a direct military intervention has more legality and it will
   be easier to get rid of an occupying force than to dismantle militias
   later."

   Fawaz Gerges, from the London School of Economics, says providing
   weapons to the Syrian opposition will play directly into the hands of
   President Assad.

   "The militarization of the uprising in Syria is a God-sent development
   for Assad, because the Assad regime has argued all along that he is
   facing armed groups, [that] he's facing al-Qaida type extremists," said
   Gerges. "And now Assad has mobilized his army and is receiving support
   from Iran. He has convinced a critical segment of his population that
   there is no political uprising - this is an armed conflict financed and
   driven by outside players, particularly the United States and its
   regional allies."

   Gerges says Assad is hunkering down for the long haul. The Syrian
   President and his supporters, he says, believe he can still defeat the
   opposition, and that, barring an international military intervention,
   he could survive for a long time.
   '''
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1]http://www.voanews.com/content/western-debate-over-whether-to-arm-sy
   rian-insurgents/1489772.html

References

   1. http://www.voanews.com/content/western-debate-over-whether-to-arm-syrian-insurgents/1489772.html