Air-strikes pissing off moderate rebels in Syria (inc. C. Pierce commentary)

[bullwinkle428]

The folks at McClatchy -- on whom, it appears, we are going to have to rely again to make sense (or lack thereof) out of our policies in the Middle East -- find some on the ground reaction that makes me wonder if anybody really knows what time it is.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/09/23/240813_syrian-rebels-angry-that-strikes.html?rh=1

But the greatest damage, they said, may be to the Free Syrian Army, the moderate rebel faction that enjoyed U.S. support for years. By focusing exclusively on Islamic State insurgents and al Qaida figures associated with the Khorasan unit of the Nusra Front, and bypassing installations associated with the government of President Bashar Assad, the airstrikes infuriated anti-regime Syrians and hurt the standing of moderate rebel groups that are receiving arms and cash as part of a covert CIA operation based in the Turkish border city of Reyhanli.

(An aside -- what only yesterday CNN was calling The Khorasan Group is now the Khorasan unit of the Nusra front? Was there a merger? An acquisition? A hostile takeover? A proxy fight between boards of directors? Did I miss a memo?)

Exactly what is the strategy here?

"Public support is the source of our power," said Col. Hassan Hamadi, a defected Syrian army officer whose Legion 5 force has about 6,400 fighters. The bombings caused "a lot" of damage, he said. He and other rebel commanders are taking heat from their own troops and anti-government Syrians for what may have been an erroneous strike - the destruction of temporary housing for internally displaced civilians in Kafr Daryan in Idlib province, which caused the deaths of 10 - and eight attacks on installations belonging to the Nusra Front, al Qaida's affiliate in Syria but an effective ally in the fight against the Assad regime. U.S. officials said the strikes were aimed at Khorasan, a Nusra unit that includes senior al Qaida figures who allegedly were plotting an attack on Western targets.

I don't have a nice office at the Brookings Institute or anything, but, if we're on everybody's side, doesn't that also mean we're everybody's enemy?

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_War_In_Brief

[pampango]

1. Title of McClatchy article: Syrian rebels angry that strikes hit al Qaida ally but not Assad

The Free Syrian Army may not be happy that air strikes are not targeting Assad forces in addition to those of ISIS. Sometimes you don't get all you want. Since ISIS has been pounding the FSA for months, they should be happy to see them weakened.

[bullwinkle428]

2. The article also states (included in my blockqoute excerpt) that

they're pissed off about the collateral damage that occurred, including at least one hit on a shelter for displaced civilians.

Can people at least consider the possibility that these could lead to "enemy groups" within Syria joining forces to eventually "stand up to the infidels"?